What You Don't Get About Kerry's Actions 11/3

by LooterScibby, Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 07:00:37 PM EST

The opening tone of this piece is harsh, but I think it gets the point across. Please, no scapegoats people.--Chris

This is for all of the folks who say, "Kerry abandoned us" when he conceded the election on Nov. 3. Let me screw your heads back on straight.

Edwards said every vote will be counted and when Kerry conceded hours later, also reiterated that promise. Why? That concession is legally irrelevant (he does not end the election) and the most important things are context, narrative and conventional wisdom.

Every political act is framed in a certian context, it develops a narrative which solidifies into conventional wisdom that may doom it or enhance it. Here is what Kerry did.

Kerry did not want the context to be "when will he concede? Will he concede? Concede. Concede," with the narrative "Kerry the sore loser, trying to grasp on in the face of 3 million plus popular votes," with an Ohio media circus, 10,000 Republican lawyers and a 1000 Republican CLEANERS (remember "the cleaner" from Pulp Fiction") to clean up murdered votes.

Instead, Kerry wanted the Republicans-


-to declare victory, get drunk, fucking party and focus on dividing up the spoils as each piggie tries to muscle up to the feeding bin. All the while, good folks like Black Box Voting and others are busy working to collect evidence and prepare challenges. The choice of battle and timing is ours.

The context needs to be "I am the voter. I voted. Now fucking count it. I paid for this system.

The narrative needs to be "If our bank can tell us how much money we have in our account to the penny, then when we bank our votes, we want them counted to the penny."

The conventional wisdom needs to solidify as "Even though the Republicans won, they cheated - even if the amount of cheating wasn't necessary to clinch the win - they did it the dirty way" AND "our voting system is broken, paper trails are necessary, computerized voting systems are all Republican connected and this wil change."

Can you imagine every media outlet camped out in Ohio running stories like "Election Fatigue! When will all of this be over? Is Kerry out of touch? Blah Blah Blah." Remember 2000 with Tom Delay's goons in Florida with the Brooks Brother Bum Rush (Let us in! Let us in!) That would really hurt us as well in the legislative battles we have to fight in Congress.

In the end, if it is about Kerry and not the voter, we will not be able to fix this system and every time in the future the issue is raised, Kerry's perceived sore loser effort will be invoked to quell the debate.

Do you really think Kerry was such a fucking wuss, a man of ZERO principle, ready to abandon everything? This is a smart thinking man who did the right thing in the right way. Watch it unfold.



Tags: (all tags)

Display:
Permalink :: 22 Comments :: Post a Comment


agreed (3.00 / 1)

I also think that the KE04 people did the math and concluded that provable vote fraud and voting irregularities almost certainly would not tip Ohio to Kerry. They would, however, if tackled in exactly the way you've described-- a concession (not legally binding) followed by mounting pressure for recounts and media investigations-- lead to cleaner voting in future elections. Remember that almost everything about how we vote (except as mandated in the Help America Vote Act) gets decided at the state, if not at the county, level. Do you know how your state does it, and whether a state legislator has already introduced a bill to fix the problems?
by accommodatingly on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 02:27:27 PM EST

we need to remove corporations from the process (none / 0)

There needs to be a national agency that standardizes and runs elections. No more outsourcing something this important to corporations that 'promise to deliver' states to specific parties.

The bottom line, if an employee of this federal agency is caught assisting in any effort to defraud the election, they lose their job, and all benefits, and then go to jail for a long time.

I can't see how the whole situation got this screwed up. How did we end up getting COMPANIES in there running parts of this thing? That is almost like guaranteeing that there will be problems.

You don't let the fox guard the henhouse.. at least sane people don't.

Also, Election Day needs to be a national holiday. Businesses need to be closed that day so people can vote.

Period.

by ultraworld on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 03:24:06 PM EST

Good post (none / 0)

I also agree. Of course, it must also be said that Kerry seems to be looking to the future as well. Who's to say he WON'T be a strong candidate for 2008?

That said, if there is doubt (and I begin to think there really is) about Ohio and many other places as well, then the best way to handle this is quietly, quickly, and count, count, count. Clearly, Kerry isn't hammering down anyone's door. He's sending the lawyers in to do the job. Apparently, so is David Cobb (good for him)!

by Green Irishboy on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 03:26:46 PM EST

Re: Good post (none / 0)

Blackwell said he isn't going to count some overseas votes and such until 10 days after the election.  That would be tomorrow.

His reasoning... the law says mail-in ballots must be post-marked by election day.

Let the games begin.

SquareState.net - Colorado Politics
by pacified on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 03:45:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

And let us not forget (3.00 / 1)

the Rep criticism that "Kerry didn't sign any important legislation in the Senate, he just focused on investigations." Yup, Iran Contra, BCCI, etc.

He's a prosecutor after all. I'm willing to believe that one of the following scenarios is true:

  1. He didn't win, he knew it, and conceded like a gentleman

  2. He knew there were irregularities, knew it wouldn't help for him to play sore loser while he figured out the real story, and conceded to keep the peace. Again, a gentleman...and a smart investigative prosecutor.

by cfr on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 07:19:36 PM EST

Sorry for the Harsh Tone - It's Well Intended (none / 0)

so many people have been writing this all over the net, calling Air America and we need to take a second look at the tactics used to acheive a longer term strategy. I want us to fight THEM. Kerry is on our side and we are at a milestone in our American history.
by LooterScibby on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 07:25:04 PM EST

Agree (none / 0)

This is a better way to look for a recount than what happened to Gore, who was branded a "sore looser."
Witty comment goes here...
by michael in chicago on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 07:38:43 PM EST

I sure as hell hope you're right (none / 0)

My suspicion is that you are. I started having similar thoughts the last couple of days. There was also a diary post about this on Kos today--something in the air? At any rate, I gave KE04 money late election night for recount and legal costs. I'd like to see them use it as intended.
by dark1p on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 07:40:54 PM EST

Re: I sure as hell hope you're right (none / 0)

If Kerry is doing this, and it works out in his favor, he may well go down as one of the greatest political strategists of all time. Think of it: Kerry plays dead on Nov. 3. Bush and the GOP go on a victory-induced bender, appointing Al "Torture Memo" Gonzalez to AG, talking up flat taxes, etc. Meanwhile, Kerry's lawyers and surrogates (e.g. his brother, Cameron) go into Ohio to investigate irregularities and possible fraud in the vote count, while proxies (Badnarik, Cobb, and Nader) ask for recounts.

Then, one day in the next few weeks (if the stars align and the monkeys type Hamlet), Kerry announces: "Hey! I won Ohio after all!" and presents an iron-clad body of evidence. Glass shatters across the nation because of the Republicans's banshee-like screams. But unless Bush declares himself Emperor (not an impossibility), he has no choice but to hand over the presidency. Liberals across the spectrum bow before Kerry's cunning and derring-do.

Of course, as someone at dKos said, waiting for this scenario to play out may be like waiting for Bonnie Prince Charlie to return from exile and rescue England in her hour of peril. But I have to admit it, I've been a skeptic of the "we wuz robbed" claims, but if there has been fraud, and Kerry is investigating it, he's picked the best possible way to do it.

by Isaac Smith on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 09:16:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

BUSH WILL NOT HAVE A MANDATE (none / 0)

There is a very important victory in counting all of the votes.  Outside of the obvious, identifying the who, when and how of the voter irregularities and potential fraud in precincts  across the nation.

Bush will NOT have the mandate he's been yelling from the rooftops that he has...you know the mandate that gave him that "political capital" that he informed the media that he's going to spend.  It will be extremely satsifying to see him wipe that smug grin off his face - when America learns he didn't get a mandate or the popular vote (again).  

by elscal on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 07:52:54 PM EST

They Don't Care (none / 0)

As far as all this mandate talk is concerned, it doesn't matter.  If past actions are of any indication, they will do what ever they damn well please, thank you.

Watching "The Daily Show", they did a skit with the guy saying "Look, when they lost the popular vote in 2000, Bush comes out as if he had a broad mandate.  Now, with the popular vote on their side, it's a SHUT OUT for them."

They are going to go after everything.  They will use all of the public institution like one big stamp to approve each and every one of their actions.  Hey, the EPA, yeah, that's the one that'll approve all those relaxation of mining dumping laws, and drilling in ANWR and damn anywhere you please.  Yeah, the civil rights commission, that'll be used to tighten all the election laws to prevent election cheat and 'fraud'.  The FCC, yeah, media consolidation here we come.  The AG office, yeah, we'll use that to prosecute file sharing, porn, marijuana use, and all those other social problems, forget about corruption.  The Supreme Court and the federal bench, consider them stacked.  ETC. ...

Don't bother with the mandate questions.  The only thing to do is to bring it on, go on the offensive, and build for 2006.

by nkp on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 10:12:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That's what I was thinking (none / 0)

Not that I'm in the bargaining stage of grief.  It was just the way that Kerry/Edwards said what they said.  

I have a friend in Ohio who was working for K/E to GOTV.  Since November 3, no-one has been able to get in touch.  No cell phone, hotel phone, e-mail, nothing.  I said that te resuts aren't certified until mid December, so they are up to something.  Don't know what it is, but I hope it'll be exciting - in the sense that I hope they are doing it in Fl, NV, and NM etc as well. That's what good lawyers do and there's 10,000 of them doing something.  

by Tall16 on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 08:00:38 PM EST

a place called hope (none / 0)

10000 lawyers trump 10000 monkeys anyday.
by moeman on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 08:05:09 PM EST

Kerry's concession means nothing (none / 0)

I agree with this. I agree that if Kerry had held on, the narrative would have been as you said.
However, having said that, and admiting that I am hoping that Kerry and his lawyers are still involved, there is absolutely no evidence that Kerry hasn't moved on. It's nice that his brother sent out a nice, supportive email. The implication is clear. It's nice that Kucinich says that there are Democratic lawyers everywhere. It probably matters not whether Kerry has 'moved on' or not.
However, we do not know for sure what is going on inside of Kerry's mind. We can hope that he was thinking as you say. But, we don't know.
Rant Du Jour
by myjlf on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 09:01:23 PM EST

KERRY (none / 0)

conceding to your opponent in an election is NOT legally binding. this means that if in the end, after all the votes were counted and by some miracle KERRY were to emerge the victor, he would be president, despite whether or not he conceded.

KERRY has been in politics for many years and is a smart man. he wouldn't have conceded if he thought he still had a chance. we're talking about the highest office in the land here, not senior class president.

and finally, his conceding early sent a powerful message. his actions basically said to me "elections are decided at the polls and not in the supreme court". if the tables were turned do you think BUSH would have conceded so quickly?

by ypsilanti on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 09:11:06 PM EST

Great comments. (none / 0)

I think this makes so much sense that I copied it to Christine Craft at Air America / Talk City 1240 AM in Sacramento.  Christine has been all over the election story, but has been really, really upset at Kerry for conceding.  Maybe another point of view will be helpful to her and her listeners?  Hope so.
by maryschoyc on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 09:37:14 PM EST

Under the radar (none / 0)

My theory: Cobb and Badnarik, who have just announced their intent to file for a recount, are Kerry proxies. If Kerry had filed, WAY too much shit would have hit the fan. If C and B file, people yawn. Perfect! Kerry's flying under the radar. What possible other purpose would C and B have? To prove they got 100 more votes apiece? If the recount pans out in Kerry's favor, he's in. If it doesn't, the Repubs still can't pin the recount and sore loser on him.

My question is, tho: how can anyone get an accurate count on those f...... machines? C and B (and Kerry) must know THAT, too. So maybe the strategy is to simply show that the Ohio election as a whole was so completely fraudulent that the whole thing must be redone. Now wouldn't THAT be something?! See the headline: "Ohio going back to the polls December 1!!"

by Jeff Donner on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 09:43:01 PM EST

Re: Under the radar (none / 0)

There won't be another election this year.  If anything, the message will be "Fix it for next time and get potentially compromised companies such as Diebold out of the equation".
NJ Hussein Independent
by NJIndependent on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 10:11:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

A random thought occurred to me. (none / 0)

Kerry was the Senator who began the Iran-Contra investigation and the BCCI investigation.  It appears that he came right up against Vice President Bush, who was head of drug interdiction at the time the CIA has admitted to being involved in trafficking. As a result of this investigation, H.W. Bush had to pardon members of his staff and a cabinet member, so that they could not be turned and lead to his own indictment.  Kerry is a meticulous investigator with access.  Could he also have in mind uncovering Bush scandals barely suspected?  If he is the Senator who brings Bush down, I think he has a good chance of being the next president.
by prince myshkin on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 03:24:19 AM EST

What You Don't Get About Kerry's Actions 11/3 (none / 0)

I agree with this assertion and general logic.  However, my comfort level is depending on some concrete assurance that someone with standing, B or C or KE04 will indeed seek a recount even if the .25% auto-recount threshold is not met. Maybe the outcome will not change, but with so much at stake, we should have vote count questions answered. My legislative election years ago was by a one vote margin on election night. A recount upped it somewhat, but the point is we all had then and have today a right to know a decent count was at least tried.
by Rubberbiscuit on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 09:25:07 AM EST

A Number of Issues (none / 0)

Why all this concentration on Ohio.  I realize this is an important state but why are we leaving out Florida.  Bush did not really win in Florida in the 2000 election.  Almost all of the black voters were not allowed to vote.  Does anyone think that all these individuals have forgotten how they were treated in 2000 and have rushed to vote for Bush this time around?  I find that difficult to believe.  There is a large population of elderly in Florida who are having more and more difficulty paying for their medication, being told they cannot get less expensive medications from other countries, who have been given a drug program that most people have difficulty understanding and has been shown to support the drug companies more than the elderly and last but not least, are being told that their social security is in real danger.  I find it difficult to believe that this group also ran to the polls to vote for Bush in numbers greater than those did in 2000.  Jeb Bush was shown to be the one who initiated the memo that started the "black list" of people who were either illegally put on a list of felons or threatened and/or harrassed into not voting.  Jeb is still in power.  
We had an illegal voting process in 2000 which left us with a man becoming President who was not voted in by the people.  This time around I believe they played it a little smarter by having computerized voting machines that could be tampered with and that left no paper ballot that could be checked to prevent fraud.  There were many problems with voting machines in the 2000 election.  Those in power had four years to insure that this did not happen again.  I see very little improvement when I'm told that the election process in Serbia went more smoothly and that the computerized voting machines in Venezuela had a paper ballot built in that could be checked to prevent fraud.  I find it strange that we could not have had this within the four year span since the last election.  I find it sad that, instead of the USA being the role model for free and fair election, we must now look to other countries as role models.  And don't expect the news media to investigate this, they haven't had any investigative reporting since Clinton left office.  They still have not investigated the Twin Towers attack and the administrations response, why we stopped going after bin Laden and instead went after Saddam who had nothing to do with 9/11 and according to all reports, had no WMD, why if the war ended in June are we still in Iraq killing thousands of civilians, why no one has been made responsible for the lack of security that allowed 9/11 to happen in the first place, and the list goes on.  I don't know what is happening to my country but I certainly don't like it.  People have been protesting since Bush took office and no one is listening to them.  The Corporate News media doesn't even show them except for the lunatic fringe.  The independent news like "Democracy Now" which can be seen on Free Speech TV and Link TV are limited in viewing areas due to the fact that they do not take money from government or Corporations and thus can only expand as much as viewer donations allow.  We need the news media as well as the Democratic Party in power to stand up and do their jobs.
by banjo on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 12:50:15 PM EST

Kerry not fighting (none / 0)

Why did Kerry reserve $21,000,000 in funds and another $8,000,000 in legal funds?  SPending over $100,000,000 to run for president is do or die, not a trial run.  Why didnt Kerry take that $21,000,000 and have a 2 hour infomercial on ABC OR NBC?  Thats how he coulda won Ohio.  If Kerry thought he was gonna win, what was he gonna do with all that left over loot?  Is he now gonna play a hero and cough up the money in 2006?  That seems a little to late for a shinning star, we wanted a Dem prez and now we are gonna settle for trying tobuy a dem House in 2006?  Something is amiss or Kerry needs a new Accountant who can figure out what his checkbook balance is so thta he could spend it.
by acbalint on Sun Nov 21, 2004 at 06:51:34 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.

Login
Username:

Password: