Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

RE Kerry not fighting in 2004

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 04:29 PM
Original message
RE Kerry not fighting in 2004
I'll make this simple. It's my understanding that he was told by the lawyers on the ground that he couldn't make an effective legal argument. If that's the case, what was he supposed to do? When your own lawyers say they can't effectively fight, I don't see that there's an option. Maybe I'm missing something, but it's hard to see what he could have done.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
LoZoccolo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 04:33 PM
Response to Original message
1. He was supposed to put on a show for our emotional gratification, duh.
Don't you know people want entertainment, and they aren't smart enough to figure out the facts and reasons behind things? He should have been on TV shouting so we could go "yeah, man!"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 04:35 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. exactly, .... so media repugs and many of the mouth dems could point and say poor loser
yup
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robbedvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 09:31 PM
Response to Reply #4
132. It wasn't about Kerry. So democracy, truth could survive. Leading. Fighting
Rather than hiding from potential attacks. It was his moment to lead. He ducked and cowered.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Leopolds Ghost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 09:53 PM
Response to Reply #132
145. What was he supposed to say? When "leading" I mean.
Edited on Sat Jan-12-08 09:58 PM by Leopolds Ghost
"Don't worry, even though it won't legally change the outcome because there's not enough proof, the entire WORLD will know that we're pretty sure the election was stolen and I'm going to camp out here until the world says so?"

Kerry WANTED to camp out until Benedict Carville called up the Bush
campaign and told them to steal an additional few thousand votes after
Kerry's lawyers had SPECIFICALLY told Kerry (and Carville) what the
CUT-OFF POINT for an effective legal remedy (and the cut-off point beyond
which simple proof could not be obtained) was. In the morning, the
vote totals switched to JUST BEYOND the cut-off point that would have
allowed Kerry to challenge the results.

I realize these shenanigans may be beyond the simple analysis of people
who seek a simple solution.

How soon people forget the machinations that prevented the results
from being challenged by YOU OR Kerry.

That's why conspiracies exist -- nobody believes Carville did such a
thing because they can't quite get their heads around why it matters,
or how it forced Kerry's hand.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robbedvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 06:35 PM
Response to Reply #1
64. How about for the country to KNOW? That we WON, not lost!
It's not "emotional gratification" - everythung was predicated on the assumption we lost...The Values voters BS, Bush's mandate and political capital talk...it would have been useful - even today.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Leopolds Ghost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-13-08 01:15 AM
Response to Reply #64
166. The proof should have been found beforehand. It's not enough for us to just "know".
Edited on Sun Jan-13-08 01:20 AM by Leopolds Ghost
You can't convince anyone if we don't at least have enough facts in hand
to make a convincing case. And even if the proof is out there it would
not have come fast enough to help a candidate behind in the popular vote
(that was counted).

WE were prone to suspect that the election was stolen, and possibly the
popular vote to cover for Ohio and Florida (remember how far that went
for Bush in 04 compared to 00? They weren't going to go half-way on
that one the second time around.)

But most people need some evidence and Kerry falling on his sword would
not suffice. That said, how do we know that the bizarre closeness of
the 2000 election was not the deliberate result of vote fraud, i.e. a
botched attempt to steal the election by compensating an Al Gore lead
one for one, i.e. an engineered tie? We saw that one of the full press
recounts had Al Gore ahead by exactly 3 votes... what is the probability
of that occurring?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Just-plain-Kathy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 09:54 PM
Response to Reply #1
146. I would have felt a lot better if Kerry would've put up a bigger fight...
...and a lot better if he fought harder to win.

All he had to do was explain why he "Voted for the $80 billion before he voted against it". ...All he had to say was that he knew the money wasn't going to support the troops, period.

Plus, what's up with having left over money after the campaign?

I think Kerry would have been a great president. He just didn't know how to fight the GOP.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 10:02 PM
Response to Reply #146
149. wait.... bigger fight that it was stolen,... (ergo he won) and bigger fight to win
which you state he won so should have fought harder for the win. fuckin truly fuckin doesnt make sense. but then this is the retarded arguments we hear in the continuing dissing of kerry. this is the bullshit stuff the media continually threw out about kerry to make it seem like he wouldnt win. this is the crap he had to spend and waste so much time fighting about thru out the campaign. perfect example of total bullshit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Just-plain-Kathy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 10:33 PM
Response to Reply #149
153. You say, and I think it's true...Kerry won. But he didn't move into the White House? ...
...Who should we blame? ...Our party? ...You bet.

Truth is, Kerry should've fought harder to expose the truth. He and Gore should have been leading the march in telling the truth.

How many times were they given the chance?

You're "fuckin truly fuckin" out of your mind if you think Kerry and our party did their best to get the truth out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Leopolds Ghost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-13-08 01:25 AM
Response to Reply #153
167. If the election was stolen, why not blame the people who stole it?
Edited on Sun Jan-13-08 01:29 AM by Leopolds Ghost
First identify the people who stole it -- we need names and locations --
and then identify the Dems who were willing to go out there and camp out
with Kerry and Edwards while their own campaign aides sabotaged the
"count every vote" effort back at HQ to "prevent Kerry from ending up
a sore loser like Gore"? That's how Carville and all the other
"Beltway Insiders" surrounding the campaign effort saw it. They
would not have allowed Kerry or Edwards to even pursue a legal strategy
with "their" campaign dollars. A party -- and a political campaign tied
to a party -- is a huge apparatus. The Beltway Dems will not tolerate
an "outsider" campaign, i.e. any campaign that does not hire them for top
spots, and they won't tolerate a campaign going off the reservation of
acceptable behavior once they've been hired to run it. They'd sooner
sabotage it from within "for the good of the Party's future"
like Lieberman did in 2000 and Carville did in 2004.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ken Burch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-13-08 02:11 AM
Response to Reply #1
171. You can't deny that no good came of Kerry just giving up.
And it isn't about "emotional gratification". It's about making a stand.

Surrender is just surrender. And Kerry gave up on everything when he didn't fight. Since then, he's been irrelevant.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 04:34 PM
Response to Original message
2. I respectfully disagree.
Once the lawyers told him that he did not have the ability to make a case in court, he was morally obligated to make a symbolic gesture, such as occupying a voting booth. He owed us, and betrayed our trust in exactly the same manner the Beatles did when they refused to reunite. It is their duty to meet our needs, no matter if it is possible or not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Inuca Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 04:39 PM
Response to Reply #2
9. I hope but am not sure
that everybody reading your post will see the invisible sarcasm smiley.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 04:59 PM
Response to Reply #9
19. I'll blame Kerry
for that, as well.

Kerry should have fought harder during the campaign. This includes confronting the Swift Boat Liars, and also being far better prepared for the cheating that absolutely did take place.

During the campaign in 2004, I posted some information that I thought was interesting. I had been contacted by some associates, who gave me information on events in Pennsylvania including a break-in at a local headquarters. Though there was cash out in the open, the only thing taken were computer hard drives. The people at the HQ were intimidated, and hadn't called the police.

I called a friend, who put me in touch with someone high up in the Kerry campaign. I understood the sensitive position he was in; thus, we made some "3 way" calls where I did the speaking, and he heard the details. A number of people commented that it reminded them of some of the early events in Watergate.

The Kerry advisor told me that there were strange things going on in 10 contested states. In my opinion, the Kerry campaign might have had some measure of success if they had begun to fight the theft of the election before people went to the voting booths. John Kerry does have some responsibility there, though much of it belongs to the democrats in those ten states. Kerry, Edwards, and the public were the victims of some Watergate-style crimes in 2004.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 05:05 PM
Response to Reply #19
22. "being far better prepared for the cheating that absolutely did take place."
Kerry, the candidate, was supposed to do the DNC's job? Kerry was not responsible for the Democratic Party's infrastructure.

And as for those 10 states, some like Ohio (where Kerry focused his efforts) were Republican controlled. In NM, Richardson denied access to the voting machines.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 05:06 PM
Response to Reply #22
23. Valid point.
I stand corrected.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 05:14 PM
Response to Reply #22
29. how do you prepare for the ten/fourteen hour lines in college areas
where votes just walk away and cant get the repug officials to do a thing. lets remember, really remember all the shit the repugs pulled that year and even though it was there in the media the american people didnt and still dont bat an eye.

texas, new mexico machines switching over votes from kerry to bush. for two weeks of early voting and could not get a damn thing done. during all this campaigning and kerry busting his ass going state to state, (and he did not rest).... was he also responsible for flying down to texas and new mexico to make sure they fixed the damn machine. maybe he should be responsible for being on his knees with a screw driver

the nigh of the election i was on the board and i was in the strong minority that the election was stolen. strong minority. i and a few had people jumping on our ass, calling us names all over the place for even suggesting the election in ohio was stolen. do you remember that night. how many balmaed kerry for his lousy campaign. was not stolen. he did not win. he is a loser.

few, very few,.... a couple supported the fact election was stolen

years later it is a given and the OUTRAGE that kerry dared to concede

reality
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 05:21 PM
Response to Reply #29
33. Yes, I remember.
In the weeks before the election, I told a close friend that Kerry was definitely going to win the election, and that she could count on that. She said she was afraid the republican machine would try to steal it. I assured her that she could count on that, too.

I remember the discussions on DU then. Strange days.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 05:24 PM
Response to Reply #33
36. i never assured they would not steal. i knew in my heart they would and feared
Edited on Sat Jan-12-08 05:27 PM by seabeyond
they would get away with it. i watched the media, .... from sept on saw them work it to allow it to happen. to condition the people. i watched the energies of the thefts before elections, the breaking of election laws and courts letting it slide, media letting it slide and the people letting it slide.

but i am at peace with you AGAIN h2o, even though my posts to you have been aggressive, lol lol to say the least.... i am not in battle, lol. that was just a time for me... too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 06:04 PM
Response to Reply #36
48. Water
under a distant bridge. 2008 is far too important.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robbedvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 09:33 PM
Response to Reply #48
133. And how do you know that water went away? because of the silence, not much
Edited on Sat Jan-12-08 09:35 PM by robbedvoter
was done to prevent another theft. That's the relevance of the issue - not beating a dead horse.
Ironically, on the campaign trail Kerry had said " I have no time to cry in my tea cup about stolen elections. I am sure his schedule is easier now - but did he help in preventing another?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 09:45 PM
Response to Reply #133
138. Well
that was a comment about something of interest between seabeyond and myself .... not about the problems that I think we all agree are very real and very serious regarding the problems with elections. So that is how I know that.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-13-08 03:25 AM
Response to Reply #48
176. Those who do not remember the past are doomed to repeat it.
Every four fucking years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-13-08 05:34 AM
Response to Reply #176
179. While that is true,
I was speaking to a specific DUer about something other than Kerry in 2004.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-14-08 01:13 AM
Response to Reply #179
184. My apologies - I misinterpreted what you were saying. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-13-08 11:05 AM
Response to Reply #176
180. and if we create an illusion of the past, still it will happen over and over
to blame just kerry for what happened back then wont do a darn bet of good. to truly look at all the factors, how they developed and why they were able to and to address all the tenacles is the only way not to do it over and over.

people that just want to point the finger at kerry prevents a correction as much as those that just want to turn their heads.

and there is a difference of remembering past and sittin in it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stevepol Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 06:24 PM
Response to Reply #33
55. I told several friends that Kerry would win the election, but that he'd lose
because there were too many voting machines in 04 compared to 2000.

My great hope was that he'd use the lawyers he claimed he had to step in and solve any legal problems or illegal activity that might arise.

He didn't do it, which was a very great disappointment to me.

I still think he's a good man and would have made a great president.

I think he just doesn't really understand, or he didn't understand in 04 anyway, the way the present Repub party works. Its only interest is in forwarding the aims of the neocons and winning elections in any way they can, which includes massive cheating and dirty tricks.

I was hopeful he would recognize that and be prepared to answer with lawsuits and refuse to concede until the vote was squared with the exit polling.

When he refused to recognize the many many Dems and election reform organizations and individuals who were actually doing his legal work for him and could have helped him immensely if he had only stood against the criminality of the Repubs, he hurt the Dems for many years afterwards.

Every time I tell a friend about the fact Kerry won the 04 election, I get this response: "If there was cheating and if he really won, why didn't he say something about it?"

There's nothing I can say. He's given the Right-Wingers their biggest argument in favor of continuing to use electronic voting to steal elections and to use dirty tricks of all kinds as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 06:28 PM
Response to Reply #55
58. your friend cops out. the lines in ohio, what we watched on tv should have outraged
every single american. if nothing else, that should have made everyone stop, demand, not trust.

but much easier for your friend to say, well.... why didnt kerry

how about prior to the election, all we heard of the republican party stealing. taking signatures, thousands and trashing them. passing illegal laws to keep votes repressed, machines in early voting not working. so much simpler to blame a single person....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 06:29 PM
Response to Reply #55
60. A lot of
good people have very strong, very different feelings about 2004.

I think that John Kerry might have been a good president. But I know that he is an outstanding US Senator, and for a variety of reasons, I think that is just as important a contribution. All three branches of our federal government are experiencing difficulties, and when the next democrat takes the executive office in a year, I think John Kerry will play a very important role in coordinating the efforts at repairing the foundation of our Constitutional democracy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-13-08 03:28 AM
Response to Reply #60
177. If not,
I hope we get sent to the same camp.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 05:07 PM
Response to Reply #19
24. kerry should have, kerry should have..... what about the damn dnc, the democrats elected
the lawyers kerry had in place, the media.

there were reasons for the swift boat that explains, but it is the one thing to blame kerry on the whole of the election. his campaign must not have been such a losin campaign if he supposedly won against an incumbent president in war.... no one has ever beat that.... but dont give kerry any credit for that.

kerry should have been god damn superman, responsible for all things in our nation and is the only one that can fix or do a damn thing about it and all of us have earned the right to sit back, wait and watch for one person to do.

i would rather lay they blame out over one and all.... instead of an illusionary scape goat of one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 05:09 PM
Response to Reply #24
28. On post #23
I noted that I was wrong. I should not be asked to accept responsibility for the same error twice on one of cali's threads.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 05:15 PM
Response to Reply #28
30. no but then i posted before your response. then i posted again
before this response. so i should not be taken behind the shed for speaking out of turn. wink
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 05:17 PM
Response to Reply #30
31. If I had not fought back,
I'd be blamed for years to come.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 05:22 PM
Response to Reply #31
34. i am a believer in ownership, personal responsibility.... consistantly, not as a hypocrit
let me explain. to be a person that embraces ownership, one must apply it with balance, or it is no good. to plant the blame on one person when it is far beyond is to not personally have ownership. ergo would , make me a hypocrit making someone else own something when i am not willing to do it. to suggest that kerry did not fight back is a non truth at the least. a changing of the story. a non reality. to blame someone for a lie, story, non truth we create is lack of character.

you could say he did not fight back the way you wanted. he did not win when he fought back. but accurately remember the facts of 2004
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 06:02 PM
Response to Reply #34
47. In Corn & Isikoff's
book "Hubris," there is a fascinating description of some of the issues the campaign was facing. On page 376, the authors discuss the topic of Iraq, and the difficulty that the campaign had in focusing their plans on Iraq. Corn asked Kerry about his haunting question on Vietnam -- "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?" -- because Kerry had tried to highlight Bush's pre-war and war of occupation errors. Corn told one of Kerry'ss advisers, Rand Beers, that "you ought to be careful what you wish for," as taking over the presidency would have been a tough job.

"Beers recognized the dilemmas at hand. His voice became quiet. He described some of his talks with Kerry about Iraq -- and what they might do were Kerry to win: 'Sometimes, when it's late at night, at the end of a long day, we look at each other and we say, "What the fuck are we going to do?" '

Yes, there were times when the Kerry campaign did not fight back the way that I wish that they had. I think it is fair to say that the campaign itself had mixed feelings, at times. I suppose that is more common to rehash things in instances where elections are lost.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robbedvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 09:50 PM
Response to Reply #24
141. The decision, the act of concession was his. The option to lead - also his.
He would have been followed, had he asked to. Money, volunteers - all were ready to help. I didn't vote for the DNC, media - so I don't have expectations from them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bongo Prophet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 09:04 PM
Response to Reply #19
119. Sarcasm noted, yes there were psyops, burglaries, harrassment, phone and fax tricks.
Most don't realize the scope of those little things that make democracy so special;(
Watergate burglary was more norm than anomalie.
Mr. "bug his own office" rove has spawned a new generation of 'ratfuckers, anxious to get to it...

Bad players in media and the Shrum et al were a major factor.
Kerry had some dodgy people around him. The campaign advisors, et al were a mixed bag, as it is this year.
There is that almost nihilist profiteering smell, you know?
Money driven, not cause driven. Such is their culture.

This is a good argument for Dean's 50 state strategy. We need better dem infrastructure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 09:12 PM
Response to Reply #119
120. Yep.
"Watergate" is how we identify a series of crimes that included the burglary, but also involved many, many other activities.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rtassi Donating Member (486 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 04:55 PM
Response to Reply #2
16. I most often agree with you
Edited on Sat Jan-12-08 05:03 PM by rtassi
especially your last journal post, but could you tell me how the Beatles betrayed our trust by not re-uniting? As far as Senator Kerry is concerned, I think he at least owed us the most complete explanation possible siting the legal realities behind his decision. I was looking for the 'sarcasm" also! OK, Now I feel real stupid for not reading it more carefully.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 05:23 PM
Response to Reply #16
35. I always liked
when Ringo sang "Yesterday." Especially the lines about "take a sad song, and make it better."

(I do not use the little smiley heads.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ginnyinWI Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 06:29 PM
Response to Reply #35
59. It was Paul, not Ringo. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 06:31 PM
Original message
No.
You are thinking of Elvis. I mean the Beatles. They did all those beach beatle songs. Ringo was the lead singer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Patsy Stone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 10:40 PM
Response to Reply #2
155. Dylan
betrayed me when he went electric.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Leopolds Ghost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-13-08 01:38 AM
Response to Reply #155
168. He should have stood up to the electric guitar-heads and wailed
On his harmonica.

You know the folkies actually won that fight. But the world would never know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 04:34 PM
Response to Original message
3. and when media actively worked against him, when he did NOT have support from fellow
democrats with power and when the american people were not, are not willing ot fight....

the expectation seems to be a single person, .... kerry,..... responsible for all of mankind, and everything less is utter and total failure
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madaboutharry Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 04:35 PM
Response to Original message
5. That is not true.
I have a relative who is a Washington lawyer and was in the Kerry/Edwards inner circle in 2004. That is not the way it happened. Kerry and Edwards had a falling out over Kerry's folding. Edwards wanted to fight, as did many around them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 04:38 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. Sorry, a personal anecdote from an anonymous poster
on a discussion board isn't evidence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madaboutharry Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 04:58 PM
Response to Reply #7
18. Listen Cali,
I don't care if you want to refer to me as an "anonymous poster" or not. I have posted several times that I have a cousin who works at a law firm in D.C. that represents members of the democratic party who hold elected office. What I have to say is the truth. Sorry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robbedvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 07:00 PM
Response to Reply #7
85. especially when not followed up by ANY ACTION for 4 years -
"he wanted" - who kept him? All these years - nary a peep.:argh:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kimmerspixelated Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 05:47 PM
Response to Reply #5
42. Yes!!
That's exactly why EDWARDS IS IMPORTANT! He won't be defeated by a stolen vote! He would continue to fight! ...the neocons will damn sure try it again. Apparently it's pretty easy to do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davidwparker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 04:37 PM
Response to Original message
6. discovery would bring out the things for the media circus that was later
document by Congressional "hearing," and other official findings.

That what you do. Exit polls in Europe within of a fraction of 1%. Math still works in the USA even when a * is on the ticket.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 04:39 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. It's not what you do if your lawyers advise against it. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davidwparker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 04:41 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. it depends on how much of a fighter you are and what statement you want
to make. Is Kerry a robot to his lawyers? Does he have a mind and will of his own?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 04:51 PM
Response to Reply #10
14. "Is Kerry a robot to his lawyers? Does he have a mind and will of his own?"
Does Edwards: Lots of his supporters claim Edwards wanted to fight for his country, but Kerry didn't let him. So exactly how did Kerry stop him considering there were candidates from other parties fighting?

"Does he have a mind and will of his own?"

What does this mean:

Blogged by JC on 08.22.05 @ 04:19 PM ET

Fighting for Every Voter

A few more words about an issue that is of the utmost importance to me.

As political candidates, we spend considerable time and effort every election cycle fighting for votes. After the election, whether won or lost, many candidates leave the irregularities of the election behind. But we owe the voters more than that. When voters are disenfrachised, we owe it to them to seek justice and expose the truth. That is why I have been so proud of the Kerry-Edwards campaign's ongoing involvement in the investigation and litigation of what went wrong in Ohio. I wrote to the candidates recently to ask that they continue to be involved in this important endeavor.

This is not about the past. It is about figuring out what went wrong and why -- and then getting the next election right, not for the Democratic Party, but for all of the voters.

link


There was also that little matter of the two Ohio election workers being sentenced for tampering with the recount so why are people still claiming a recount never happened. It did, but it was rigged in a state run by Repubs.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 05:01 PM
Response to Reply #14
21. today people dont even pretend to remember the reality of 2004. just a simple
kerry didnt fight for my vote.

i remember that time, the election night, exactly when the theft was happening and the strong percentage on this board threw tantrums at those of us that said it was stolen. the media never once said a positive thing about kerry, he was constantly working against the misrepresentation, yet solely he was going to stand against all and ..... what?

so many people, years later, say how their heart was broken, kerry destroyed their lives, their existance is for not.... cause kerry didnt fight. i would like to go back to that night and see.... just see.... if they were the ones saying what a loser kerry was, he lost, simple as that, was not stolen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Leopolds Ghost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-13-08 01:46 AM
Response to Reply #21
169. One candidate good two candidates bad.
Edited on Sun Jan-13-08 02:02 AM by Leopolds Ghost
Kerry didn't fight for... um... that's all people will remember about him, isn't it? Repeat something often enough and the facts become irrelevant because what sounds right feels right. You can go back, of course, in the archives, and I agree.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooky3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 06:35 PM
Response to Reply #8
65. other sources reported that Kerry wanted to keep his powder dry
for another Pres. run in 2008, according to people who were there. He didn't want to seem "divisive." Given the state of the current Bush-ravaged court system, I can certainly understand his hesitation, but I also believe he made the wrong decision.

Given that he had a pretty damn good lawyer in his VP who made a career out of knowing which cases to fight and which to reject, and that that lawyer thought they had a good case to fight, I do think this alternative scenario is highly plausible.

I believe the NY Times was one of the sources that reported this info, and Newsweek was another. Since people were very reluctant to be identified in the story, we'll probably never know the truth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 04:42 PM
Response to Reply #6
11. kerry immediately had three cases going in ohio. people are pissed he conceded
if he did not concede when he did, what would he have waited for..... 2 days, a week... until the cases were brought all that time ago. there were recounts. they cheated on the recounts, remember. what good is the not conceding but to have the large percentage, (many on this board didnt believe it was stolen, a constant battle that night with just a few of us KNOWING it was stolen)crying poor loser.

what would it of gained. with the facts. with the emotion of that time. in honesty with what kerry was doing. all of it. to not concede would have done what?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MonkeyFunk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 04:59 PM
Response to Reply #6
20. You don't get to "discovery"
unless you can make a legal case that the suit has merit and should proceed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 04:42 PM
Response to Original message
12. He should have grandstanded and made empty promises,
then conceded, so everybody here could accuse him of grandstanding and making empty promises, then conceding.

:crazy:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
undeterred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 04:48 PM
Response to Original message
13. Hindsight is 20:20
Nobody who has never run for office can imagine what a huge sacrifice it is for someone to do this. I am sorry things turned out the way they did, and I wish with all my heart he got better advice but I think the world of John Kerry and I do not hold it against him.

He is a great American and I appreciate all his service to this country, including his run for president in 2004.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stillcool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 04:54 PM
Response to Original message
15. I thought it wasn't hip to question votes....
counting anymore?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ms. Toad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 04:57 PM
Response to Original message
17. Wait for a decent period -
perhaps at least until the votes are counted - to concede.

He had lots of folks on the ground in Ohio working for him. Some of whom (like me) had limited time and could only work on one campaign decided it was more important to work for Kerry than against the marriage discrimination amendment.

As someone who has been married for 26 years - and still waiting for legal recognition, that is a major sacrifice (particularly when he doesn't even support my marriage).

To have him concede before they were even done counting all of the votes was a real kick in the gut, and I have not - and likely will not - forgive him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bemildred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 05:08 PM
Response to Reply #17
26. Indeed, why not stall? What was the hurry about giving it to bush for another 4 years?
How was that "Good for America"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 05:18 PM
Response to Reply #26
32. stall? people dont remember, they dont think it thru, ignore facts or just make things up
and then post a reply. stall? back in 2004 with all the mess, with 2000.... a stall. what? until the morning? and that would have done what? stall a couple days? what would that have done. stall until after recounts? that the repugs cheated on and were prosecuted with years later?

now that you actually have hindsite, tell me what a stall would have accomplished and how that would have been good for anyone
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ms. Toad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 05:29 PM
Response to Reply #32
38. It would have been respectul
to those who had sacrificed their own interests to work to get Kerry elected.

I not woke up to find that more than 3 million of my neighbors had taken time out of their busy days to go to the polls to spit on us - and that IS how it felt

AND not only that, but the person we chose to work for instead of fighting that hateful amendment didn't even bother to wait until the votes were counted to throw in the towel.

That's not hindsight - that is how I felt at the time. You can go search for my posts if you don't believe it.

It is how I feel now.

Those who accept our trust and sacrifices are expected to at least be respectful in return. His premature concession was not.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 05:35 PM
Response to Reply #38
39. by who? 5% of the populace. i was on this DEMOCRATIC board that night.
i fought with my fellow dems on election night saying it was stolen and the VAST majority saying kerry lsot. suck it up. he was a lousy candidate. he ran a lousy race. it is truly, truly amazing to me ms. toad how it is now a given that kerry won (so he must have been a GOOD candidate all along and ran a damn good race all along to beat an incumbant and during war which has NEVER been done)and EVERYONE jsut EVERYONE is saying he won and should have conceded, when reality was, the night of the race most all on this very board was pissed at him for losing and insisting he should have conceded. the only RIGHT thing he did.

it is so very easy for people to tell their story today and ignore the reality of the then.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ms. Toad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 05:46 PM
Response to Reply #39
41. Like I said
do a search of my posts before you accuse me of hindsight.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 05:56 PM
Response to Reply #41
45. even afforded hindsight..... what would it accomplish? especially with hindsight
if kerry had not conceded, what would it have accomplished? you want him to do something that has NO benefit what so ever,.... for a respect he may gain from a very few, that would have accomplished NOTHING> beside the respect you now state. betcha it would have been exact the opposite (in hindsight and sittin in 2004) of respect. disdain, scorn, namecalling is more like it.

but tell me what it would have accomplished, with hindsite, without
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ms. Toad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 06:25 PM
Response to Reply #45
56. For starters,
His concession before the votes from some of the voters I had got to the polls were ever counted makes it less likely that I will ever put a candidate's interests above an issue that affects me personally. His concession said, loud and clear, your efforts are not even worth a day or two of my time.

Some of the voters I got to the polls had to vote provisionally - we targeted folks who were new voters or who had not voted in a number of years, the very ones most likely to have to vote provisionally got the same message - and that is even more devastating. The bothered, after years of not voting, to get to the polls because they thought it might make a difference. Kerry told them, by conceding before their votes were counted, that he didn't care about the effort they made - their votes were not important to wait for him to wait for them to be counted. They might as well have stayed home - and next time they probably will. At a minimum, they will be even harder to convince that their vote might make a difference.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 06:32 PM
Response to Reply #56
63. concession is not legally binding and can be withdrawn
this is how our culture.... not one person, but our culture has created the elections. the media, the demands of the people. what you have angrily pointed the finger at kerry for is what our politics are today. alright. i can go with you not projecting winner, taking a week to make sure all votes are counted, and the number established. lets start it now. lets change the system, media, politicians but most, the american people

but to demand that one person is responsible for it all is ridiculous.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ms. Toad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 07:14 PM
Response to Reply #63
98. That makes it even worse.
If there was no legal impact (and you are correct, there is not), it is even more important that he be respectful to the people who worked for him, went to the polls for him, and may or may not be inclined to work for/go to the polls for the party and principle he represents ever again based in large part on the message he sends them. He sent the message: your work, your vote are not important enough for me to wait until the votes (yours or the ones you rounded up and got to the polls) to be counted.

My vote is not at risk, unless there is a viable third party candidate who more closely represents my views - and so far there has not been anyone remotely close to a viable third party candidate. My work on behalf of a candidate who is the better of two less than ideal choices is at risk, particularly if there is an issue near and dear to my heart. If Obama or Clinton are on the ticket AND a referendum related to GLBT issues is on the ballot, I will vote for Obama or Clinton but I will not be pounding the pavement for either one of them. Edwards is a toss-up, at this point. He is open enough to growth on GLBT issues that he might get my active support over a GLBT referendum issue.

The votes of the individuals I got to the polls for the first time - ever, or in a number of years, is at risk. Some of them will likely not vote again because the person they made the effort to vote for didn't even bother to wait until their vote was counted.

A little respect, particularly when there was no legal reason to concede, would have gone a long way toward maintaining the tenuous support among new/renewed voters and energetic campaign workers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robbedvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 06:42 PM
Response to Reply #45
67. It would accomplish: draw attention to the fraud, to the fact that we won, they lost
Even today, this would be useful!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 06:46 PM
Response to Reply #67
71. that is too simple a statement to make, and NO i do not think that is what would have happened
if kerry could have pointed to it and said look, fraud.... i do not concede. then yes it would have. if kerry said there is fraud, we must hunt it down, i will not concede, he would have been attacked by a majority of dems and not gotten support, he would have been attacked by a large number of americans. he would have been attacked by ALL of media and ALL of republicans and it would have all been, he is a sore loser.

it was all set up well before election night.

we immediately went into recounts. cases sprung up across the nation. that right there equally does what your statement wants. and still what.... what has it done. now there is a very dull energy across the nation where a majority now feel elections are being stolen. that is the best we got..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robbedvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 07:07 PM
Response to Reply #71
92. "sore loser" would have been a price - but he had activists - millions of us
Edited on Sat Jan-12-08 07:07 PM by robbedvoter
"to have his back" Too bad, he turned his back to us.
Gore had nothing like that - just the usual party machine voters. All activists were with Bradley, Nader. Sarandon was on Letterman making fun of Florida voters. Ralphie was saying "let's flip a coin" and the cool kids stayed away...And still gore put himself out there for us. Not Kerry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 07:17 PM
Response to Reply #92
101. Stop making things up
Edited on Sat Jan-12-08 07:17 PM by ProSense
Jane Fonda among top Gore givers:

The Associated Press

WASHINGTON — Actress Jane Fonda was among nine supporters of Vice President Al Gore who made six-figure donations to his recount committee, newly released records show.

Stephen Bing, a California screenwriter who wrote a $1 million check to the Democratic National Convention's host committee last summer, gave $200,000 to Gore's recount committee. Bing was an executive producer of Sylvester Stallone's recent movie ``Get Carter.'' Houston trial lawyer John O'Quinn also gave $200,000, records show.

Fonda, top Democratic donor S. Daniel Abraham and Tennessee developer Franklin Haney were among the $100,000 donors.

Steven Kirsch, founder of the Internet company InfoSeek.com, donated $500,000.

The committee provided the names of 1,258 donors who gave a total of $3.2 million as of Nov. 27, according to financial disclosure records released Thursday. Since then, the committee has raised another $300,000.

While more than 80 percent of the donors, or 1,018 individuals, gave $200 or less, the recount committee also took in dozens of larger donations, including at least three six-figure contributions. Under federal law, recount committees can accept unlimited donations, although George W. Bush is limiting his contributions to a maximum of $5,000. Bush has raised $7.4 million to pay for his Florida recount expenses.

At least 368 people have given $5,000 to Bush, while Gore had 36 $5,000 donors and 79 supporters who gave more than that.

In September, Fonda contributed $11.7 million to an abortion-rights organization, Pro Choice Vote.

Haney, a longtime supporter of Gore, was the developer of the Portals complex in Washington, D.C., the new home of the Federal Communications Commission. House Republicans accused him of buying political influence to get the FCC to move.

In July, he was acquitted of charges that he used straw donors to mask $100,000 in political donations and lied about it in filings to federal regulators.

Abraham, the founder of the Slim-Fast diet program, was one of several big Democratic donors who reached into their pockets one more time to help finance Gore's recount operations.

Gore also received $25,000 from Sen.-elect Jon Corzine of New Jersey; $5,000 from Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle's political action committee; and $1,000 from Democratic consultant James Carville, who ran President Clinton's 1992 campaign.

The recount committee was incorporated under Section 527 of the Internal Revenue Service code. It reported its contributions and expenditures to the IRS.

While Gore and Bush are raising money to finance their recount operations, the Democratic and Republican parties reported spending millions in the closing weeks of the yet-to-be-concluded 2000 elections.

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee spent $17.3 million during the last three weeks of the fall campaign, slightly more than the $15.8 million reported by its Republican counterpart.

Senate Democrats gained four seats Nov. 7 and are tied with the GOP at 50 seats apiece.

Meanwhile, the Republican National Committee said it spent $57 million after Oct. 18, most of it by Nov. 7. The RNC is continuing to raise money, taking in $13.2 million last month. Between Oct. 18 and Nov. 27, the RNC raised $48 million.

``Republicans, independents and open-minded Democrats are excited about Governor Bush and the Republican Party's positive plans for smaller, smarter government and increased opportunity for all Americans,'' RNC Chairman Jim Nicholson said. ``And their enthusiasm has been showing in their generous contributions to the RNC.''

The Democratic National Committee said it raised $42.7 million between Oct. 18 and Nov. 27.

``Our fund-raising success reaffirms the American people's belief that Democrats are right on the issues and their abiding faith in Al Gore and Joe Lieberman's ability to lead this nation with civility and honor,'' DNC National Chairman Joe Andrew said.


Show me where this happened in 2004!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Usrename Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 08:07 PM
Response to Reply #101
107. What are you trying to suggest?
Why are you arguing that no one contributed to Kerry's recount drive? THERE WAS NO RECOUNT DRIVE!!

:banghead:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 08:46 PM
Response to Reply #107
115. Did you read what was posted? Banging your head without understanding is senseless! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robbedvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 09:18 PM
Response to Reply #115
123. He/she did. You refuse to see the effect of the concession on us, our support
Edited on Sat Jan-12-08 09:19 PM by robbedvoter
You keep drumming the "legally binding" BS and refuse to see that HE ENDED THE RACE, KICKED US TO THE CURB when he conceded and had no right to expect anything from us.
How can you decry he didn't have a recount drive - when no such thing was even asked of us? he left the building, OK? We were left holding the bag.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 09:22 PM
Response to Reply #123
125. No one left you holding anything. You chose to spend four years
whining instead of paying attention to the facts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robbedvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 09:47 PM
Response to Reply #125
139. Whining? Wait until them diebolds in November - then you'll see whinning.
He'll be responsible for that too - as far as I am concerned - because he failed to champion the issue. That goes for his slick VP too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Leopolds Ghost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-13-08 02:09 AM
Response to Reply #139
170. "Kerry will be responsible for what happens in 2008, too"... ?!
Edited on Sun Jan-13-08 02:10 AM by Leopolds Ghost
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robbedvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 08:38 PM
Response to Reply #101
114. How could it happen in 2004 - AFTER HE F*ING CONCEDED???????????
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 08:49 PM
Response to Reply #114
116. You said Kerry had more support than Gore. Now you say it didn't happen.
Stop screaming!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robbedvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 09:15 PM
Response to Reply #116
122. HE did have support. All throughout the election. Less so after he shat on us. But some of you
Edited on Sat Jan-12-08 09:15 PM by robbedvoter
are obviously still happy - no matter what - so, yeah. Had he called on us to support his efforts, we would have all camped in Ohio to count votes (some did anyway!)
Why do you refuse to see the difference between BEFORE and AFTER the concession?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 09:19 PM
Response to Reply #122
124. Did you not
see this, here for the one hundreth time:

Blogged by JC on 08.22.05 @ 04:19 PM ET

Fighting for Every Voter

A few more words about an issue that is of the utmost importance to me.

As political candidates, we spend considerable time and effort every election cycle fighting for votes. After the election, whether won or lost, many candidates leave the irregularities of the election behind. But we owe the voters more than that. When voters are disenfrachised, we owe it to them to seek justice and expose the truth. That is why I have been so proud of the Kerry-Edwards campaign's ongoing involvement in the investigation and litigation of what went wrong in Ohio. I wrote to the candidates recently to ask that they continue to be involved in this important endeavor.

This is not about the past. It is about figuring out what went wrong and why -- and then getting the next election right, not for the Democratic Party, but for all of the voters.

link


Since the 2004 election is being revisited, here are some facts

There was also that little matter of the two Ohio election workers being sentenced for tampering with the recount so why are people still claiming a recount never happened. It did, but it was rigged in a state run by Repubs.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robbedvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 09:22 PM
Response to Reply #124
126. Obscure litigation while Bush was gloating of man date and pundits were blabbing
Edited on Sat Jan-12-08 09:24 PM by robbedvoter
about value voters...Kerry voters were posting on the "We're sorry" website - apologizing for *'s victory...Strategists were talking about why we lost...
And all this time, our candidates were silent - and you want me to be impressed by some litigation? To this day, none of them took up the cause...To this day, they both keep the omerta (much as Edwards tried to inoculate himself with the "he wanted" rumor)
Even today, either of them could make a difference - maybe avoid another theft.
To this day....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 09:26 PM
Response to Reply #126
129. It's obscure because you choose to ignore it in favor of
perpetual complaining.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robbedvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 09:44 PM
Response to Reply #129
137. He lacked the balls to fight as a winner - for fear "they"ll call him a loser
So, he put on the mantle of the loser and I am supposed to be impressed about some lawsuits?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 09:49 PM
Response to Reply #137
140. That makes no sense, but neither does denying reality in order to continue complaining. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robbedvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 09:58 PM
Response to Reply #140
148. He was in the center of attention - but chose to hide. Conyers, other fighters
Edited on Sat Jan-12-08 09:58 PM by robbedvoter
had to be relegated to the basement - unseen, unheard because of this. I'll repeat it until you get it. Kerry kept the omerta on the theft by conceding. he incapacitated anyone who wanted to fight - by basically distancing himself fromus (binding or not)

he denied us

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 10:04 PM
Response to Reply #148
150. Keep complaining:

KERRY WON



Agree?

He is also won Iowa and NH, that's a fighter! LOL!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robbedvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-13-08 01:10 AM
Response to Reply #150
163. Agree that he won. I am sure he won bigger than Gore.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 05:38 PM
Response to Reply #38
40. or.... was kerry to not concede for respect today..... he surely would not have received
in 2004. he should have said.... you know, for the respect once people realize it was stolen, that i will need in 2008, from all the democrats that are going to then point the finger at me.... i should not concede now. i will wait WHAT? a day, a week.... how much time before he concede must he wait before he earns your respect three, four years later.

remember now.... there was a recount. they cheated in that too. took years to go thru court.

when should he have conceded to EARN YOUR respect
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ms. Toad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 05:49 PM
Response to Reply #40
44. At least until the votes were counted,
Kerry conceded before all of the votes in Ohio were counted. There were enough uncounted votes for him to have won Ohio. At least have enough respect for the people who worked their tails off in Ohio, and put the interests of the country ahead of their own, to wait until every vote we rounded up was counted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 05:57 PM
Response to Reply #44
46. There were enough uncounted votes for him to have won Ohio.
bullshit

that is the optimist and hopeful..... in you. but not the reality.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robbedvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 06:45 PM
Response to Reply #46
69. Florida was in play too. Other states as well
But again, even if unsuccessful, it would have brought attention to the problem! let his voters know we won! Not allow the value voters BS to invade the airways while he was speaking of his PERSONAL challenges from God...



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 06:47 PM
Response to Reply #69
73. i think nevada was stolen too. yes i know all this. i have done the research
and paid CLOSE attention, step by step thru out the campaign and election.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ms. Toad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 09:52 PM
Response to Reply #46
143. No, that is the reality
There were more uncounted ballots than the difference between Kerry and Bush.

Do I believe those ballots would have actually changed the outcome - no. Do I believe the votes the voters tried to cast was closer than the ultimate vote tally showed - yes - there were a number of major bungles which tended to either shift votes from Kerry to Bush or to keep Kerry voters from voting.

But mathematically, it is a correct statement that there were enough uncounted votes at the time he conceded for him to have won Ohio, and he should have waited until the math played out, out of respect for the voters who cast those uncounted ballots.

I don't have a strong opinion one way or another as to whether he should have pursued the rest of the fight.

Again - my resentment is solely over the disrespect with which he treated his supporters.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 09:55 PM
Response to Reply #143
147. then every person that concedes, from the past to today and beyond
they disrespect the voter by not counting all votes before they are in. it is a reality we live in. what that particular angle changed, fight it. but i think there are many more serious issues with our votes than when a candidate concedes. pointing exclusively to kerry on this doesnt work
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ms. Toad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 10:40 PM
Response to Reply #147
154. As a general matter,
I think it is rude to concede before all of the votes are counted, but don't pretend you don't understand that the human dynamics in 2004 were very different than the typical election.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-13-08 03:40 AM
Response to Reply #46
178. Right - if he had won every one of those as yet uncounted votes.
It's a simple calculation: the other side had a larger margin than he would make by getting 60% of the uncounted votes.

There was simply too much fraud, committed in too many different fashions, for him to make up the difference. So he conceded.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 11:03 PM
Response to Reply #44
156. That is the norm and happened in EVERY modern election except 2000
The concession is usually in the evening of election day - and there are always votes not counted. Part of the military vote (as we learned in 2000) has not even arrived yet. Kerry referenced that there were votes not yet counted, and they would be counted but said they were too few to make the difference. Let's say that once they started calling EVERY single provisional ballot was valid and they were all for Kerry (2 unlikely events) and they put him over the top.

Kerry would then retract the concession - just as Gore did in 2000 when it became clear it was closer than anticipated earlier. Kerry's was the second slowest concession at least in the last 50 years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ms. Toad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-13-08 02:37 PM
Response to Reply #156
183. Sorry,
2004 was not like every other year - unless, perhaps, you look back to the height of the Vietnam war.

There were significant numbers of people involved in the election process this year who had never been involved before - both at the campaign worker level and the voter level. Kerry's concession before the fruits of their work or vote were even counted at was a slap in the face who made that effort hoping desperately that it would make a difference. Ultimately it didn't - but at least that work should have been respectfully treated, not dismissed as insignificant, regardless of what the usual practice is.

2004 was the first time that conservatives used, on a mass scale, a referendum on the lives of individuals for the primary purpose of driving voters likely to vote for their preferred candidate to the polls. "Go out and show these people your hatred/contempt for them (GLBT folks)- and while you are there, vote for our candidate" was the implicit, and in many instances express message.

Many of us whose lives were most impacted by this hatred/contempt were faced with the choice between trying to counter this message of hatred and putting our energies toward fighting the ballot initiative - and working for a candidate who tolerates us, but still would not acknowledge our marriages and families. We realized that we could not do both simultaneously, without jeopardizing any hope we had of ousting Bush. The reality is that many people who want Bush out of the white house ALSO believe my marriage does not exist - and addressing the issue of voting against the marriage discrimination amendment with voters I was trying to get to the polls would have jeopardized gaining an ally in ousting Bush. Around half of the campaign workers I worked with in Ohio were GLBT - and each made the same choice I did, to put aside working to oppose the marriage discrimination amendment in favor of trying to oust Bush. That personal sacrifice should have been met with more respect than his concession before the votes were even finished being counted. Not only do I feel spit on by the 3 million residents of this state who took time out of their busy days to announce that my marriage of 26 years does not exist, I was told that my work didn't matter enough for Kerry to even wait to see what it looked like.

I am not talking about whether it would have made a numbers difference (although mathematically it was possible). I am not talking about whether it has any legal impact. I am talking about being respectful and responsible to the people who made extraordinary sacrifices to round up the votes - and those who made the effort for the first time, or the first time after a long absence, to go to the polls.

It is highly unlikely that I will make the same choice this year.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robbedvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 07:09 PM
Response to Reply #40
93. Not respect. THE TRUTH - is that important enough to you?
Knowing we won????
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bodhi BloodWave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 05:09 PM
Response to Reply #17
27. unless i am wrong, that was the second slowest concession the US have had
Which means it was a decent period
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robbedvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 08:36 PM
Response to Reply #27
112. Not for a won election it wasn't!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ray of light Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 05:08 PM
Response to Original message
25. specifically--the Ohio Dems and the National Dems told him there was no fraud.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 05:27 PM
Response to Reply #25
37. but it is just soooo much easier to blame kerry for all. all the people said he was a loser
that is why he lost the race. now they say he was a winner and is a loser cause he didnt fight.

easy to change a position over three years ago when all the time for info to come out. not that many of them would have supported kerry the night they insisted he should have held onto conceding.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 05:48 PM
Response to Reply #37
43. People forget that in 04 we were STILL digging out evidence of the
00 election theft. I, too, would have preferred he not concede quite so soon, but the fact is the actual EVIDENCE of fraud and theft didn't come to light for weeks, months and even years after the fact. There were cetainly suspicions, and some indications, but no actionable evidence, and as a lawyer himself he knew that it would not be available in time to mount a challenge.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robbedvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 09:41 PM
Response to Reply #43
136. We didn't vote for a lawyer - but for a leader. We've been had.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-13-08 03:24 AM
Response to Reply #136
175. We were had, but by Bushco, Rove and Blackwell.
Not by Kerry.

Again, I say I wish he'd taken a couple more days before conceding, to make more people aware of the problem, but there was nothing he could do for the known problems that would change the outcome - a recount would only confirm his loss. Too much of the fraud was tied up in the distribution of machines, the illegal disposal of provisional ballots (which once gone, were GONE) and other nefarious practices that a recount couldn't change.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-13-08 11:14 AM
Response to Reply #175
181. bushco, rove, blackwell, msm, swiftboats.... always it is kerrys fault
thru out his election, for every issue, it was never on the shoulder of those doing, it was always on kerrys shoulders that he was to blame for the people doing. i was always amazed how easily the people were led to believe it was kerrys fault and never the responsible parties. the repugs led the media by the nose and the media led the people
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robbedvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 07:10 PM
Response to Reply #25
94. He called the lawyers off the tarmac - "so we don't look like cry babies"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 06:12 PM
Response to Original message
49. How about not conceding 14 hours after the polls closed?
WTF was his hurry? Why not let the process continue and see what evidence came out?

He knew the election was being stolen. He's on record saying that (though he denies it now). Given those statements, his concession was one of pure betrayal and political cowardice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 06:14 PM
Response to Reply #49
50. Exactly. What is the big rush? If I were queen of the universe...
No results would be announced for a week to give vote counters a chance to count ALL the votes. Speed be damned, go for accuracy. Patience.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 06:15 PM
Response to Reply #49
51. Did you know that
Edited on Sat Jan-12-08 06:17 PM by ProSense
a concession is not legally binding and can be withdrawn if the facts change?

Obviously not!

A year later, the facts had not:

Blogged by JC on 08.22.05 @ 04:19 PM ET

Fighting for Every Voter

A few more words about an issue that is of the utmost importance to me.

As political candidates, we spend considerable time and effort every election cycle fighting for votes. After the election, whether won or lost, many candidates leave the irregularities of the election behind. But we owe the voters more than that. When voters are disenfrachised, we owe it to them to seek justice and expose the truth. That is why I have been so proud of the Kerry-Edwards campaign's ongoing involvement in the investigation and litigation of what went wrong in Ohio. I wrote to the candidates recently to ask that they continue to be involved in this important endeavor.

This is not about the past. It is about figuring out what went wrong and why -- and then getting the next election right, not for the Democratic Party, but for all of the voters.

link


On edit: more.

Only recently: Two Ohio election workers being sentenced for tampering with the recount so why are people still claiming a recount never happened. It did, but it was rigged in a state run by Repubs.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 06:20 PM
Response to Reply #51
52. My bad. Once again, I expect a Kerry supporter to understand political reality
Imagine that after Kerry concedes, then finds evidence of fraud. How would that play out in the MSM?

"John Kerry was for conceding before he was against it." Does that sound familiar?


And, of course, there WAS ample evidence of fraud that night. We were all screaming about it. But it wasn't enough for Kerry. He needed to have a bullet-proof case handed to him within twelve hours of the vote. Sad.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 06:23 PM
Response to Reply #52
54. we were not ALL screaming about it. the percentage on this board went hands down
to those saying kerry lost. you may have been with the group of us that were screaming stolen, but i know not the majority of us. and this is a democratic board
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robbedvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 07:15 PM
Response to Reply #54
99. Percentages are his fault - he allowed them to take the bullhorn from his hand
Edited on Sat Jan-12-08 07:16 PM by robbedvoter
Majority was fed by MSM. kerry had his shot at limelight - for 14 hours. Then he gave up. Just like Palast predicted - election day.( I was angry with him at the time - how do you know? - he knew)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 06:25 PM
Response to Reply #52
57. Gore did it:
Election Day, 10 p.m.
Networks retract projection that Gore wins Florida; state reverts to too close to call.

Nov. 8, 2:20 a.m.

Gore calls Bush to concede after networks report the governor leads by 50,000 votes in Florida. Networks project Bush to be the winner in Florida.

Nov. 8, 3:30 a.m.
Gore calls Bush back to retract his concession, after receiving reports that the vote difference in Florida is less than 1,000. Networks retract projection that Bush wins Florida; state reverts to too close to call.

link


Blow-by-blow account of Gore's concession -- and retraction

So Gore, even though he was up by 500,000 popular votes, conceded with 50,000 votes shy of winning the electoral college. He retracted the concession when he realized it was only 1,000 votes.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robbedvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 06:50 PM
Response to Reply #57
77. Yes! Why didn't Kerry retract/not concede? He lost the bully pulpit the second
he conceded. (making HIM safe from RW attacks and us ignored)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 06:57 PM
Response to Reply #77
83. Gore conceded with 50,000 votes
shy of winning the electoral college. That's a big difference between being down 3 million in the popular vote with a 137,000 votes to make up for an electoral college win. Gore conceded with 87,000 votes less than Kerry to make up, but retracted it when he learned it was only 1,000.

After the initial recount, Kerry still 118,000 votes down, needing 60,000 to swing his way.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robbedvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 07:17 PM
Response to Reply #83
102. He didn't bother to LOOK! He didn't want to risk. He let them say they won.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Leopolds Ghost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-13-08 02:33 AM
Response to Reply #52
172. So John Kerry should have taken his strategy from fear of GOP talking points?
Edited on Sun Jan-13-08 02:38 AM by Leopolds Ghost
Besides which, we still don't have bulletproof evidence.

I don't see anyone here talking about the article anymore,
where the associated press came out and said if you count
every vote, Gore won... and the Post carried it with the
headline, "BUSH WINS EVEN WITH FULL RECOUNT"... a blatant
lie that I don't recall anyone here dwelling on. How did
they get away with it? Because Bush won all the PARTIAL
recount scenarios (that Gore requested on his LAWYERS advice).
Remember, BUSH asked for a full recount of every county and
GORE dismissed it, saying it was a tool to drain his funds
because his lawyers said that "red" counties lost votes
would help Bush, therefore we shouldn't count them...
WHY AREN'T WE ANGRY ABOUT THAT?

With the Ohio fraud, we don't even have THAT.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 06:21 PM
Response to Reply #51
53. concession is not legally binding and can be withdrawn another simple FACT
people ignored then and ignore today
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robbedvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 06:52 PM
Response to Reply #53
79. legal/schmegal - he lost control of the message - let them pretend and hide
Edited on Sat Jan-12-08 06:52 PM by robbedvoter
the whole mess the moment he conceded. I don't resent Gore for stopping after SCOTUS ruled - he at least made it clear to all - this was not a win for Bush. Not so Kerry.
he put down the microphone and let then bury us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 06:53 PM
Response to Reply #79
80. Bingo.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 06:56 PM
Response to Reply #80
82. bullshit
so easy just to throw whatever out.

people, the american people watched all this shit happen. we watched votes being denied. we watched machines not working and flippin over votes. we watched republicans throw away signatures. we watched courts make it legal to deny votes. we watched them cheat in the recounts.

but it is all kerry

this is the most wussy blame i have yet to see.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robbedvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 07:02 PM
Response to Reply #82
89. Kerry had 1000 times the support Gore had - activists, voters, even some media
(Air America). Gore was pummeled from right and left (Nader, Bradley etc), yet he had the guts to hold on to his win - as long as he legally could.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 07:06 PM
Response to Reply #89
91. You are trying to have it both ways, claiming that there was both attention and no attention.
Besides the current claim is nonsense. Everyone knew Gore won the popular vote and the recounts went ahead.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robbedvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 07:20 PM
Response to Reply #91
105. There was the POTENTIAL for attention - if he held on -. Only Randi on Air America
Edited on Sat Jan-12-08 07:21 PM by robbedvoter
and maybe Rachel Maddow, Sam Seder were still with us. The 2 Marks, Franken - were calling us conspiracy nuts. Their argument?

HE CONCEDED!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 07:28 PM
Response to Reply #105
106. .

CONCESSIONS ARE NOT LEGALLY BINDING



If that was their argument, maybe they are the ones who are nuts, and anyone who put stock in what they had to say!



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robbedvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 08:33 PM
Response to Reply #106
110. BUT THEY ARE EFFECTIVELY ENDING THE DIALOGUE ON THE ELECTION
:wtf: with the legally binding? This is not about a law suit - this is about

leading


As in telling his voters to stand by him and hold on that concession!
Possession is 9/10 of the tile?
HE GAVE IT AWAY!!!!
BINDING OR NOT - HE GAVE THE TITLE OF WINNER AWAY - WHY CAN'T YOU UNDERSTAND THIS?
When was he supposed to un-concede? years later? he needed to seize the moment and hold on to what was his. Lawyers are a dime a dozen - we thought we voted for a leader...
You talk like accountants...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 09:25 PM
Response to Reply #110
127. Nonsense!
Conyers was investigated and produced a report, the lawsuits and recount went forward, Boxer objected to the electoral certifications, and you have been complaining ever since. So the it didn't end.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robbedvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 09:39 PM
Response to Reply #127
135. Conyers was in some basement! because Kerry gave possession of the title/position
Very hard defending a candidate who conceded - and please spare me the "non-binding " BS. You can't use that on "you're nuts! your own candidate admitted he lost, congratulated Bush"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 09:50 PM
Response to Reply #135
142. "Conyers was in some basement!"
Nice, but again, the facts: the Republicans were in the majority in Congress.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 09:52 PM
Response to Reply #142
144. not repugs fault for theft, for basement for the war.... kerry... he is responsible
Edited on Sat Jan-12-08 09:55 PM by seabeyond
for All the ills of the nation. not the people, not the media, not the rw chrches, .... it is all kerry. he wanted to lead. he should have created utopia amongst all the chaos in a single bound.

dontcha know
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Leopolds Ghost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-13-08 02:47 AM
Response to Reply #110
174. Um, it is deluded to think "he gave the title of winner away" -- nobody believed he had won n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Leopolds Ghost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-13-08 02:44 AM
Response to Reply #79
173. You don't resent Gore for REFUSING to count EVERY VOTE?
As the papers made clear, based on an EXHAUSTIVE media-funded hand recount of EVERY ballot Gore would have won HAD HE ACCEPTED Bush's offer to count
every vote, which Gore, on Lieberman's and others' advice, rejected because he wanted to selectively recount only the bluest areas. Gore LOST every selective recount of the areas Gore challenged in court. As a result, the papers claimed that Gore would have LOST NO MATTER WHAT -- because he conceded the vote IN COURT in the Republican counties which put him over the top. GORE REFUSED TO CHALLENGE THE VOTE in red counties where Blacks were outnumbered and outgunned. And you forgive him for that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robbedvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 06:39 PM
Response to Reply #49
66. Exactly. Keep the bully pulpit, the attention - make them SEE the fraud
Edited on Sat Jan-12-08 06:40 PM by robbedvoter
By folding like he did - he legitimized the theft - and most people - even here - are unaware of the overturning of the results.
A fair number know about 2000 (thank you, Gore!) but only a few are aware that Bush was NEVER elected.

Do you realize GOP hasn't won nationally since ...1988????
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 06:44 PM
Response to Reply #66
68. You are perpetuating a lie
Edited on Sat Jan-12-08 06:44 PM by ProSense
Conceding has nothing to do with finding evidence and the efforts to find that evidence continued:

Blogged by JC on 08.22.05 @ 04:19 PM ET

Fighting for Every Voter

A few more words about an issue that is of the utmost importance to me.

As political candidates, we spend considerable time and effort every election cycle fighting for votes. After the election, whether won or lost, many candidates leave the irregularities of the election behind. But we owe the voters more than that. When voters are disenfrachised, we owe it to them to seek justice and expose the truth. That is why I have been so proud of the Kerry-Edwards campaign's ongoing involvement in the investigation and litigation of what went wrong in Ohio. I wrote to the candidates recently to ask that they continue to be involved in this important endeavor.

This is not about the past. It is about figuring out what went wrong and why -- and then getting the next election right, not for the Democratic Party, but for all of the voters.

link



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robbedvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 06:47 PM
Response to Reply #68
72. Had he delayed concession - like Gore did - everything would have been halted
and the media HAD to cover this. As it was, it was swept under the rug - only Randi and KO were mentioning it. Even on Air America, most hosts were insulting the callers.
But Kerry didn't want to ut himself on the line. Neither did Edwards for that matter - he had time enough to prove the opposite.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 06:49 PM
Response to Reply #72
75. no swept, no under rug. people werent outraged when they were given it to see
we were watching them cheat in the recount and people didnt yell. courts didnt do anything. we watched them get away with it.... as a nation
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robbedvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 06:54 PM
Response to Reply #75
81. KO, Randi - were the only voices - BECAUSE he conceded. He gave them the spotlight
From the moment he conceded, he stopped being a player. (and became safe from the attacks)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Usrename Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 08:22 PM
Response to Reply #75
108. If the candidate doesn't give a shit, why should anyone else care?
Don't you see the logic there? Why do you expect everyone to have a duty to fight on, even after he gave up?

He had plenty of foot soldiers to bring into the fray, many more than Gore had in 2000. And he also said BEFORE the election that he was ready to fight with everthing he had, he was supposedly PREPARED for this, which is way different since no one was prepared for any of it back in 2000.

He deserted the cause of voting rights activists everywhere, whether you want to admit it or not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 08:50 PM
Response to Reply #108
117. So if they didn't care, why so they give shit? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robbedvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 09:37 PM
Response to Reply #117
134. He was supposed to be the leader ("of the free world") He had to call his people
to fight - not mope THEY weren't calling him. he was in a position to lead. he failed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-13-08 12:27 AM
Response to Reply #134
161. Utter crap!
You've just describe sheep, you know, like Bush voters. When they don't get what they want they have hissy fits (see digby).

Kerry's duty was to act responsibly, pursue the facts and not engage in grandstanding and political theater. He lived up to the two former, and only an irrational person would expect him to do the latter.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 06:52 PM
Response to Reply #72
78. Gore conceded before Kerry
Gore, even though he was up by 500,000 popular votes and with 50,000 votes shy of winning the electoral college, conceded almost 10 hours earlier than Kerry. He retracted the concession when he realized it was only 1,000 votes.

Election Day, 10 p.m.
Networks retract projection that Gore wins Florida; state reverts to too close to call.

Nov. 8, 2:20 a.m.

Gore calls Bush to concede after networks report the governor leads by 50,000 votes in Florida. Networks project Bush to be the winner in Florida.

Nov. 8, 3:30 a.m.
Gore calls Bush back to retract his concession, after receiving reports that the vote difference in Florida is less than 1,000. Networks retract projection that Bush wins Florida; state reverts to too close to call.

link


Blow-by-blow account of Gore's concession -- and retraction



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robbedvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 06:57 PM
Response to Reply #78
84. But took it back the moment he heard of the numbers! he kept it going!
Why is it so hard to see? If kerry had done same, he'd me my hero now no matter the outcome!
JUST FIGHT, DAMN IT, FIGHT! and I don't mean secret law suits - i mean challenge the outcome by keeping winner status.
The Romanian "loser" did so a month later - they recounted - and he took office.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 07:01 PM
Response to Reply #84
86. Like I said,
you are perpetuating a lie. No amount of facts penetrates your determination to spin.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robbedvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 07:12 PM
Response to Reply #86
96. What lie? Didn't he concede? Didn't he keep silent? Wasn't he absent when Boxer
challenged the Ohio delegates in the Senate?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 07:01 PM
Response to Reply #84
88. the fuckin romanian people took to the streets, took the fight.....
the american people sat and watched it happen and allowed it.

no one was standing behind kerry. the DEMOCRATS weren't even standing behind kerry. why werent we all in the streets on the day of when we were seeing votes stolen and repressed left and right. watching the lines in college cities and voters being turned away. why werent we the people, across the nation, all parties willing to fight for our vote. so much simpler telling ONE man it is his job
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robbedvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 07:03 PM
Response to Reply #88
90. Not really, The candidate spoke, held rallies, declared he won't concede until
the recount. We, the Kerry voters didn't have one day to organize....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 07:11 PM
Response to Reply #90
95. Gore was right to retract his concession. He was up 500,000 votes and only need
1,000 to win the electoral college. That wasn't the case in 2004. Kerry declaring that he would not concede wouldn't make tens of thousands of votes magically materialize.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robbedvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 07:13 PM
Response to Reply #95
97. How did he know at the time? You need to investigate these things before deciding
We found plenty of them eventually. And there was Florida too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 07:20 PM
Response to Reply #97
104. What are you talking about?
The first report on which he based his concession was wrong, and he got a call clarifying that it was only 1,000 and retracted it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
noamnety Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 06:31 PM
Response to Original message
61. Who said this?
"As a young woman, I attended Witwatersrand University in Johannesburg, South Africa, which was then not segregated. But I witnessed the weight of apartheid everywhere around me. And so, with my fellow students we marched in the streets of Johannesburg against its extension into higher education. This was the late 1950s, at the dawn of the civil rights marches in America.

And as history records, our efforts in South Africa failed and the Higher Education Apartheid Act passed. Apartheid tightened its ugly grip, the Sharpsville riots followed, and Nelson Mandela was arrested and sent to Robin Island.

I learned something then, and I believe it still. There is a value in taking a stand whether or not anybody may be noticing it and whether or not it is a risky thing to do."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robbedvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 06:31 PM
Response to Original message
62. Lawyers were turned around from the tarmac because of a POLITICAL decision
Edited on Sat Jan-12-08 06:36 PM by robbedvoter
was made. Mike Papantonio confessed this on Air America, grudgingly "because they didn't want to look like crybabies"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gort Donating Member (567 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 06:46 PM
Response to Original message
70. Voter Suppression is the crime of the century!
MSM didn't care so there was no crime.

Your vote doesn't count. Get it, yet?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robbedvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 06:48 PM
Response to Reply #70
74. and it's only ONE of the dirty tricks....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Malikshah Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 06:50 PM
Response to Original message
76. Simple is the operative word.
"my understanding"
"Lawyers on the ground that he couldn't make an effective legal argument"

Case closed?

Nope.

Kerry folded. And continues to do so.

It would be nice if folks could accept that they've been taken in by a weak willed politician and get on with their lives.

A few questions for folks

What lawyers specifically?
What did they say?

And most importantly-- who have they worked for since 2004? Who do they work for now?

For now, though.

Kerry's a tool and was a tool.

He was crammed down our throat in Jan-Feb 2004 and folks still won't admit they were wrong about him being a fighter who would go to the mat for the US people when it counted most.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
balantz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 07:16 PM
Response to Reply #76
100. I have to agree with that.
But then, I don't trust corporate owned American politics, Red or Blue. It looks to me that it's all pretty much a sham.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Malikshah Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-13-08 12:51 AM
Response to Reply #100
162. That's why I've been moving toward Edwards since Gore didn't jump in
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluesmail Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 07:01 PM
Response to Original message
87. I'm still waiting
I still have hope, although not as much as a year ago, that things will turn around, for example something our guys are working on behind the scenes, it's a secret because of all the spying going on, it would involve Gore, Kerry and Edwards for sure. I really do have hope. After the '08 election, IF there really is an election, (I don't see these asses letting go of the power they've stolen), then and only then I will give into total depression, absolutely. sad but true
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
balantz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 07:17 PM
Response to Reply #87
103. That would be a really great surprise.
Something to really "hope" for.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 08:27 PM
Response to Original message
109. As an Ohioan at the time of the election...
and seeing what I saw, he should have fought it. Did his lawyers mention the terrorism threat that caused a lock down of an administrative building in Warren County, but the FBI denies making? Or college students waiting in line to vote until 3:00 or later in the morning. Some shady shit went down in Ohio, and I would have liked at least some form of investigation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robbedvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 08:35 PM
Response to Reply #109
111. It wasn't the lawyers but the politicians.Lawyers were recalled "so we won't look like
cry babies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
senseandsensibility Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 08:36 PM
Response to Original message
113. Lawyers can be wrong and don't always agree
with each other. There was no rush to succumb to lawyers' opinions immediately.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LittleClarkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 09:15 PM
Response to Reply #113
121. We don't even agree either. Some say he lost, some say he won.
And there were those who were working against him in his own party, I'm convinced. It's one of the reasons I can't go with Hillary right now. I think her people had something to do with not backing him up when he needed him.

I don't think he felt like he had backup.

Woulda shoulda coulda.

I still support him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robbedvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 09:26 PM
Response to Reply #121
128. He (they) are responsible for "he lost" disinformation. It was up to them to
let the voters know they won.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 10:22 PM
Response to Reply #128
152. dont believe the numbers, ohio officials, media, republicans and most democrats that i lost
cause i won. cant prove i won but robbedvoter swears if i stand here in front of the american people, media and all and tell you i won, though everything tells you i lost.... i will have the support of thousands upon thousands of people


rollin eyes
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MasonJar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 08:53 PM
Response to Original message
118. John Kerry is a hero and a great American statesman. And that means period.
I am very proud to have voted for the winners of the 2000 and the 2004 presidential elections, Al Gore and John Kerry. I hope that I vote for the winner again and that this time he/she get to actually live in the White House.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robbedvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 09:29 PM
Response to Reply #118
131. at least you aren't saying he lost...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Truth2Tell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 09:28 PM
Response to Original message
130. It's your "understanding?"
Gotta link? Did this come to you in a dream? Or from your double top secret sources in the world of politics? Maybe the smoking man from the X-Files? :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blackhatjack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 10:14 PM
Response to Original message
151. Kerry should have listened to Edwards and insisted that every vote be counted before conceding...
I hear people talk about how Kerry was steamed that Edwards was running this time and he could not garner enough votes to enter the race.

However, it makes you wonder if Kerry was thinking about a second run for President when he decided to concede without insisting that every vote be counted first.

There is nothing dishonorable in insisting that all the votes of thousands of people who stood in the rain for hours were counted before conceding.

That answers your question "what was he supposed to do?"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 11:11 PM
Response to Reply #151
157. This is not true
Kerry could have entered the race if he wanted - in fact through fall 2006, he polled at the same level as Edwards - though Edwards got good press (a thing of the past now) and Kerry didn't. Kerry would have likely benefited from the debates. There is no Kerry comment you can point to that he "was steamed" Edwards was running.

Edwards did not risk his reputation speaking in public about not conceding for at least a year and a half. Kerry spoke of the election problems in the Senate and in speeches, detailing the known problems. Edwards also never said what his case would have been - channeling the thoughts of all the Ohio voters on election day would not cut it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blackhatjack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 11:25 PM
Response to Reply #157
158. Edwards was the VP running mate and did the honorable thing not speaking out against Kerry...
Edited on Sat Jan-12-08 11:28 PM by Blackhatjack
... but many close to the Edwards campaign know the truth, which has been disclosed to the public without the candidates' direct comments.

Go back and check... Edwards never conceded --he spoke first and introduced Kerry.

BTW I never said Kerry made a direct comment to the media that he was 'steamed', I made this allegation "I hear people talk about how Kerry was steamed that Edwards was running this time..." and I stand behind it as being absolutely true.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-13-08 12:18 AM
Response to Reply #158
159. no he only did it behind his back to let EVERYONE know "unofficially"
he didnt want kerry to concede.... geeeesh

that given, and edward not a favorite of mine, i would still prefer him to this field this year.... but seeing how he is third.

i can take that edward isnt perfect and still see him as a good president.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robbedvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-13-08 01:14 AM
Response to Reply #159
165. Yup. Attempt to inoculate himself rather than help clean elections
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-13-08 12:20 AM
Response to Reply #158
160. Does that explain why he did not comment on the very problems
that both Kerrys did.

It also makes no sense as he manufactored the slam that he told Kerry to hit back at the SBVT, which many campaign insiders deny and which flies in the face of his public comments in 2004 and later that he did not want to be an attack dog.

Because he was introducing Kerry, it was normal for him not to concede and did not mean he was against conceding. It would be weird for the VP to concede before the President. Give me an instance when one did.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robbedvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-13-08 01:12 AM
Response to Reply #151
164. Edwards should have listened to Edwards too - and championed the cause
Edited on Sun Jan-13-08 01:12 AM by robbedvoter
A fine campaign issue he had on his hands! he is as guilty as Kerry for the fact that many are clueless we won in 2004!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-13-08 11:18 AM
Response to Original message
182. People will continually blame Kerry for this
no matter the obstacles he faced or how the media would have presented it and the people at large would have seen it. I think it's time for people to let it go.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftofthedial Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-14-08 03:16 AM
Response to Original message
185. find new lawyers
the "election" was fraudulent
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu May 16th 2024, 12:04 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC