Ok, let's get some things clear, Kerry haters...

[rockymountaindem]

Number one:

John Kerry and John Edwards waited until all the votes were originally tallied. They didn't even show signs of quitting until the last possible moment. Even then, concessions are non-binding. Hell, a candidate can concede after the first precinct is tallied, but if he or she gets the most votes, that candidate can still win. So that "he conceded right away" crap is a non-starter. Just because you concede doesn't mean you're really finished. If, on the other hand, the "early" concession is all that bothers you, you're missing the point; valuing style over substance. That makes you no better than the people who say "I don't agree with Bush's policies, but I like him because he's a strong leader".

Number two:

How can we prove we were robbed? This isn't a case of dimpled chads like the 2000 election. Do we have access to the central tabulators? Can we prove they were or weren't changed? No, we can't. Do we have control of the legal apparatus in Ohio? Nope, the entire state is Republican controlled. How are we going to prove this with no evidence? Should we (the Democratic party or the K/E campaign) pay for an expensive lawsuit with no evidence? That's up to you donors. And, perhaps most importantly, do you think that two passionate men, who risked their reputations, millions of their own dollars and nearly 18 months of their lives would just quit without investigating all the options? If the only answer you haters have to that is some Skull and Bones conspiracy theory, don't waste your time with that shit.

Number three:

Now, let's not forget the intimidation factor. How can we prove that in court? Is the photographic evidence? Don't sit there in your basement, haters, and tell me "they must be somewhere". If they were there somewhere, you can bet that Kerry's lawyers would have found them. Do we have credible witnesses, such as non-partisan poll monitors or law enforcement agents, who will swear on a stack of Bibles that they saw people being intimidated into not voting? Can we prove that this tipped the balance of the election? Yes, Blackwell moved voting machines out of Democratic leaning districts in an effort to thwart voters. Unless there's some sort of law against that, I don't see what we can do about it. Yeah, it was a cheap shot, but what could we do after the fact?

So, Kerry haters, unless you're able to overcome all of that, quit your whining. Kerry sacrificed for the campaign, and he wasn't just going to roll over and die. I almost forgot to mention that the big attack on Fallujah started what, the day after the election? So imagine, some "sore loserman" daring to challenge the legitimacy of the "War President's (tm)" reelection while our troops are putting their lives on the line? We would have been laughed/shamed out of the media court of public opinion.

Maybe there was cheating, maybe there wasn't. You'll have to make up your own minds. But remember, the burden of proof for your average Democrat is a lot lower than it is in a court of law in a Republican state, especially when all the "evidence" never really existed in the first place.

There, I had to say that. Sorry it was so long.

[JI7]

1. great post

too rational for many of the bashers. but still a great post.

especially like this part :

< If, on the other hand, the "early" concession is all that bothers you, you're missing the point; valuing style over substance. That makes you no better than the people who say "I don't agree with Bush's policies, but I like him because he's a strong leader". >

[rockymountaindem]

2. Thanks. Really, that bothers me more than anything else.

Like the people who were all about "Boxer '08" back in January. Now, don't think I don't appreciate that Boxer got us a few hours of debate in the Senate about the electoral vote. I do appreciate that. However, what did that get us other than a few hours of debate and one day of media coverage?

On the other hand, there are a lot more subtle yet more effective things that people like Conyers are doing. These are the sort of things that Kerry has done for years. It's not as flashy as grandstanding wrapped in a flag on the steps of the Capitol, but it gets the job done.

Yet far too many people here wildly cheer the symbolic gestures and poo-poo hardcore investigations like BCCI and deal-making like the gang of 14 compromise. Such people have more in common with rah-rah right wingers then they'd probably like to admit.

[ginnyinWI]

3. short attention spans

Some DUers are like little kids wanting to be amused with the controversy of the day. They want to cheer or boo whomever. They need a daily dose of "red meat" and have no patience with long-term projects or nuance. Yeah, I'm really glad most of the Democratic party isn't like this bunch.

Rockymtn, you've got it right--they really do want to cheer the symbolic gestures more than anything else. They are driven by high emotions--anger, hatred, sadness, joy--you name it. But we need to have more than emotional reactions to get anything done for the party and the country, and I'm really glad people like Conyers and Kerry are out there leading the way and giving us all good examples to follow.

[JI7]

4. just compare Durbin and Byrd

Byrd has voted with Republicans on so many horrible bills which actually do harm to the country yet he is cheered because of speeches he use to make against Bush.

Durbin has a very good voting record yet he got and still gets crap for that apology. Byrd doesn't get nearly as much crap as Durbin and others like Kerry get.

[JohnKleeb]

5. Yep

[ginnyinWI]

7. they seem to understand one litmus test

and that is the politician's aggressiveness. If you criticize the war, you are automatically "good". If you back down on anything, at anytime you are "bad". Seems we have here some of the same kind of simplistic black-and-white thinking as some on the right have. :(

[LittleClarkie]

6. reposting something I just wrote

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x388412

"I thought he'd abandoned us months ago. How can you abandon someone when you've already abandoned them?

Even after I'd remind folks about the Ohio lawsuit, I'd still here "He promised to count every vote! Where is he?!"

So why be surprised?

He's just doing what everyone already said he did, right?

I mean, you can't have it both ways, can you? Either he abandoned you months ago, and folks have been berating him ever since. Or he's abandoning you now (possibly) and getting berated for it.

As for me, I have to admit, if it's true, I will miss saying "But what about the lawsuit in Ohio still pending" whenever I'd encounter someone saying "He promised to count every vote! He's a coward! He abandoned us! Iiiiieeeee!!!!"

Don McTigue. Kudos to him if his job is now done. Thanks dude. I won't have to remember your name anymore, but thanks."

I'm just a tad bitter. Can you tell?

[MH1]

8. Excellent!

You reminded me of a major point I forgot to include in my earlier rant on this topic.

You can't count votes that weren't cast. Voter suppression was the name of the game here. EVEN IF some legal charges ultimately result in punishment for the perpetrators (which would be nice), there is no way the outcome of the election would be changed. And does anyone think there would actually be a re-vote? Oh puh-lease! Even if law allows it (which I have no idea if it does), we just don't have the media power to raise the public pressure that would have been required.

And the point about the timing of the assault on Fallujah is one that I had forgotten totally about, that is also crucial to the PR aspect.

But what the bashers wanted was for Kerry to go down "fighting". The operative phrase being "going down." They don't value him for what he can do as a Senator, they wanted whatever pittance of PR they could have gotten by him going down in a media "sore loserman" flameout. Oh and never mind what the people of Massachusetts might have wanted him to do.

Speaking of which, does anyone have any evidence one way or the other what the other Democratic Party leaders were telling him to do? Not that he was obliged to do it, but it may have mattered.

[politicasista]

9. rockymountaindem and everyone:

:yourock: :hi:

[Island Blue]

10. Excellent post Rockymountaindem!

Reading that was like receiving an inspired pep talk first think in the morning! You brought up some excellent points. Did you also post this in GD-P? I sure hope so!

[Goldeneye]

11. Good post.

This post should be our standard response to the whiners in GD and GDP whenever they bring up the concession.

[TayTay]

12. Excellent post!

You raise very good points about that race in Ohio. If I may add another point it would be to remember that the Rethugs in Ohio controlled:
The Governorship
The Legislature
The Attorney General
The Supreme Court
and the Secretary of State.
That's a lot of Rethug power and very little Dem power in this state. What realistic chance did a challenge face in light of all this power arrayed against the Dems. (The Rethugs had the legal system. They controlled the debate. Sad but completely true.)

There are a lot of pissed off people in Ohio who want change. There is an article in the NYTimes today about a ballot initiative that would demand impartial oversight of elections and the removal of the SecOfState as election overseer. This bodes well and needs Dem funding (overt and covert.) You can read this at: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/10/national/10ohio.html

[whometense]

13. That was inspiring.

Thank you.

This is a little OT, but has everyone seen the FairVote report? It raises some very interesting questions, and gives another direction to the voting reform debate.

http://www.fairvote.org/

The Shrinking Battleground

New FairVote Report Rips Two-Tier Democracy in Presidential Elections

FairVote’s new report, The Shrinking Battleground: The 2008 Presidential Elections and Beyond, provides a devastating critique of the Electoral College and its impact on American politics. Fewer and fewer Americans play a meaningful role in electing their president, with a damaging impact on voter turnout, racial fairness and political equality.