Kerry makes connection between disputed Iranian election & 2004 election

[beachmom]

Not a very good article from the Herald about a Mass. appearance (WHICH town in MA, BoHe?) by Senator Kerry, but this is interesting:

http://news.bostonherald.com/news/politics/view/20090623sen_john_kerry_backs_president_obamas_stance_on_iran/

Kerry was addressing a group of Massachusetts residents in town for the day at the senator’s invitation.

“Where this goes, folks, nobody knows,” Kerry said of the ongoing street violence in Iran.

...

Kerry said he was somewhat amused today upon hearing that Iran’s Guardian Council had acknowledged that at least 3 million votes were in dispute.

“I sort of had to laugh about that,” Kerry said, noting that there were 3 million votes that he said went uncounted in his own 2004 election defeat.

Discuss. :)

[fedupinBushcountry]

1. Happened in a press conference

with a Foreign ministry official:

At another point in the press conference, he referenced the 2004 Bush-Kerry presidential race, noting that foreign governments didn't urge Kerry voters like those "in Los Angeles" to not accept the results.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/22/iran-election-live-bloggi_n_219299.html">link

[beachmom]

3. Thanks. Iran's Foreign Minister. But then what is Kerry saying here?

Stupid BoHe doesn't give the full quote.

[YvonneCa]

2. President Kerry. You all know my thoughts on this...

...I think. :) But, in case there is doubt :7 :

1. I think he knows everything about the 2004 election...and the 2000 election for that matter.

2. Both his comments (not just this, but over the years) and the way he has conducted himself affirm to me that he understands that there was a pretty good chance he won. If you ask yourself, if you were JK and thought the 2004 election was somehow 'not right'...what would you choose to do? I think the answer is EXACTLY what he HAS done. JMHO.

3. Our democracy is more important than one election...albeit an 'iffy' one. I think JK put the country first, and...like Al Gore...did not de-stabilize it. Maybe both should have, who knows? But when you watch Iran and the violence, it's easy to see what a serious decision that was. Maybe JK made the best decision for the time. I DO hope Congress passes legislation to reform our federal election system, though. I know work has been done on this and I hope...at some point before 2012...it gets done. THAT could be a decent benefit from the loss of JK as President.

[beachmom]

4. Well, and there were no significant protests in America after the 2004 election.

People accepted the results overall. If there was fraud that was enough to change the result of the election, it was done well, unlike in Iran where it was done so obviously.

[wisteria]

6. I think the election just served as a catalyst for a movement that has been around and growing for

several years now in Iran. The election served as an excuse to demand change. In 2004, the fraud and disenfranchisement involved in the election was unfortunately, less important to many people who were still satisfied with the way our country was going and really did not have a clue just how awful a president Bush was.
I know we disagree on the outcome of 2004, but you have to admit that Bush was so bad that Rove had to do everything he could to get him reelected.

[YvonneCa]

7. This part...

Kerry said he was somewhat amused today upon hearing that Iran’s Guardian Council had acknowledged that at least 3 million votes were in dispute. “I sort of had to laugh about that,” Kerry said, noting that there were 3 million votes that he said went uncounted in his own 2004 election defeat.

...seems to suggest that he is saying that the 3 million disputed votes were a commonality of both elections (2004 and Iran). In his election, they ended up counting for nothing. In Iran, they are a reason cited for the protests.

I disagree with you that any possible fraud in 2004 was done well. Just the Ohio mess disproves that. I also think there WERE significant protests...including Boxer and Tubbs-Jones in Congress. But I blame the lack of significant public protests on the lack of media coverage...something which Iran (and the Ukraine :) ) have had.

I'm not saying I think large public protests would have been a good idea...I really don't know about that. There is a lot to be said for a stable, mature democracy. But if the information had become general knowledge, things may have played out differently.

It is STILL uncool to dispute that election. Why is that?

[beachmom]

8. 1 million Americans were out on the streets after the 2004 election? I rest my case.

The world I lived in in 2004 was quite fearful of terrorism; people voted for Bush. A lot of people LOVED him and thought he walked on water. I disagreed vehemently, but honestly, I had to be careful what I said in those days. My view is that the same country that was basically split down the middle in '00 and '04, swung moreso to Obama (although that may have been more about new voters) YET we still live amongst the yahoos who voted for George W. Bush. Yes, Ohio was a mess, but there were other states where he did very well in which were not focussed on that much by either campaign. It was the fear and belief in the Tough Guy back then that created the 2nd term for George Bush.

[YvonneCa]

9. I don't think I said anything about...

...a million people being in the streets. And my memories of 2004 were very similar to yours.

We'll just have to disagree about Ohio and the election.

[TayTay]

5. The Senator was having a Constituent Day in DC

and had invited MA Constituents to come to DC for a day of discussions and meetings. This was a general meeting that allowed constituents to ask questions of the DC Senate staff, the Senator and other prominent Washingtonians and Congressional Members.

I hope it becomes an annual event.

For those of you on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/event.php?eid=95907096775&ref=mf