The myth that Kerry could have won by challenging the election results.

[The Night Owl]

All this Kerry bashing has gotten on my last nerve.

Does anyone here honestly believe that Kerry could have won by challenging the election results? Does anyone here honestly believe that the only thing preventing the exposure of election fraud was Kerry's reluctance to challenge the results of the election?

Get real! Nothing Kerry could have said or done would have changed the result of the election.

If Kerry had challenged the election on the basis that massive fraud had been committed, we all know that the RWNM and the mainstream media would have made him into a laughingstock by portraying him as a sore loser. And yet, people here are still peddling the ridiculous myth that Kerry lost the election because he didn't challenge the results.

Please get real!

Those of you who want to criticise Kerry should feel free to, but at least criticise him about something he had some amount of control over.

[still_one]

1. I agree with you

Gore is a different story though. All they needed to do was demand a total recount of Florida, not just selected areas.

[ray of light]

85. Right! (see text below)

And take a look at this picture from the democracy cell project. Is it a legitimate handling of "special ballots" or is something more sinister going on here? http://www.democracycellproject.net

Clearly what everyone in this thread wants is fair elections. How can we make that happen. Each of us has 10 different views of what should be done and how to do it. I think it's time we stop blaming Gore or Kerry! Afterall, it's not like someone gave us a playbook that said, "This is how you fight corrupt elections." It's not as simple as fighting the school bully--the school bully in this instance controls the FBI, CIA, Republican Party, Congress, Justice System, Tv media, corporations, and the state of OHIO and FLORIDA where the majority of fraud occured!

So I concur...stop bashing Kerry...he's the victim too. It's like bashing the victim of rape for not fighting hard enough. Enough blaming the victim and instead look to how we can fight for real media reform and election reform.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

2. NO! IT WAS SKULL AND BONES@#!$!@#

:sarcasm:

I'm on that last nerve right along with ya. I'll also note I was not a Kerry supporter in the primaries. (Gephardt was my dog.)

[Lerkfish]

3. It is not the measure of a soldier that he expects to always win

but that he endeavors to always fight for what is right, even if the odds are daunting.

something he promised to do.

something he didn't do.

[BlueEyedSon]

5. Exactly, it's the principle.

[Imagevision]

73. Kerry wouldn't even back up John Conyers findings of election fraud

But, wouldn't be surprised if Bushco threatened kerry with accidental deaths of daughters. Kerry bailed, the man said; this time your vote will be counted? - we now know this wasn't the case!

I think poppy Bush got heavy with Kerry!

[jobycom]

9. No, that's the definition of a DEAD soldier

The mark of a live soldier is that he knows when to retreat so he can fight again another day.

[Lerkfish]

16. we'll have to disagree.

my point is that if Kerry only wanted to fight if he could be assured of victory, what was the point? We knew we were up against some huge immoral obstacles.

[The Night Owl]

17. Kerry didn't want to be assured of victory...

All Kerry wanted was a chance of victory. If anything, having Kerry in the lead of an effort to challenge the election would have lessened his chances of victory, not increased them.

[Lerkfish]

23. I disagree.

many people have said by NOT having Kerry spearhead the challenge, it was dead in the water. Luckily, other groups took up the standard and ran with it.

but, here's the gripe: Kerry asked for donations SPECIFICIALLY to fight the election fraud if necessary. within 24 hours, he had determined it was pointless? How is that possible, really?

especially considering what we have discovered since then, it was incredibly premature.

[jobycom]

19. My point is that he wanted to fight as long as fighting did some good

but not to the point where fighting was just for the sake of fighting. He fought, he lost the election, he had it investigated while he watched behind the scenes, he saw that nothing would come of his fighting any more, and he moved back to the Senate where he continues to be a strong voice for a powerless minority party. And we have no idea what he's doing behind the scenes, and whether any of what's happening in Ohio now is happening because of his behind-the-scenes efforts.

Kerry ran for president, and as a result, he got slandered and smeared by both sides. Just angers me more than I can explain.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

27. But doesn't his criticism of the administration look the same?

He would have been painted as a "sore loser" if he challenged the results, but now he gives out press releases criticising the administration. I know it's not the same thing, but is percieved that way. I agree that what he's doing now is right, but he let a LOT of supporters down that he had won over in the primaries. I don't see him getting the nomination again.

And the fact that the admin's approval ratings have been dropping since the election shows that Kerry COULD have won. He SHOULD have won. But we kept hearing the same things from him...supporting the war now that it's going on lost a lot of people, since the other guy supported it too.

[jobycom]

43. No way. How?

He criticizes the administration because he disagrees with it. That's what politicians do. If anything, he looks like he's fighting for what he believes in. If he had continued to fight for an election that everyone believed he had already lost, then he would have been seen as a sore loser. The two aren't even similar, much less comparable.

The fact that Bush's numbers have dropped since the election only shows that he could win now. Maybe he could have won the election if he had done things differently. Maybe not. Who can know? Kerry had to fight Bush and a media that repeated lies about him without doing their job to expose the truth. He ran a great campaign. He may have even won, as it is.

I don't see how he let a single supporter down. He fought hard, he lost, he moved the fight to an arena where he still had power. It was an honor to vote for him. If he runs again, I'll consider voting for him again, depending on who runs against him. I can only think of one other person at this moment I'd give a clear pass to, but Gore hasn't announced he's running.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

61. Well, for starters

He's using the same mailing list from the campaign. He's writing to those of us who donated up until the last minute...even though he ended with $12 million in the bank.

He had MANY opportunities to nail * but didn't take them. Just off the top of my head - in the debates, when he said that * wasn't that concerned with bin Laden, he should have had the quote ready, knowing that * would deny it.

Saying stuff like "I voted for the $40 billion before I voted against it," when he should have known how that would play out (I understand what he meant, but that's beside the point." Skiing and windsurfing when he was ahead in the polls - what the hell were the PR people thinking? That's not going to help with an "elitist" image.

Sure, I'm "second guessing" and saying "coulda, woulda, shoulda." Damn right I am. I'm not supporting another campaign that had the election won a couple of months before Election Day, only to piss it away. Of course, if he were nominated I'd vote for him, but I wouldn't exactly have high hopes for Election Night.

[Fla Dem]

75. My sentiments exactly.

I'm tired of all this whining about Kerry giving up and letting his supporters down. Nine months after the election and there is NO CONCRETE PROOF that can be taken to a court to show election fraud. We may all feel there was fraud, and in fact there probably was. But without the smoking gun, it cannot be proved. Kerry put himself out there, had his family smeared, his military record defiled, and his Senate career record distorted.

Could he have done a better job at campaigning, sure maybe. But he turned around a lot of people who had no interest in him initially, so he must have done something right

[leyton]

18. Thank you. Kerry has done much good since the election-

he has become a leader in the Senate and a vocal critic of the Bush administration. If he had gone down contesting the election in vain, he might not be able to do good where he is today.

[The Night Owl]

28. What some fail to grasp is that retreat is a tactic...

Retreat is a tactic just like any other tactic.

[Lerkfish]

58. is it a successful one in politics?

can you point to one instance of POLITICAL retreat that won the day later?

yes, I understand its a battlefield tactic. But that has to do with geography and physical position.

Political geography is measured in words, and minutes, and strategy instead of miles and terrain and weaponry.

To retreat in politics is to die.

[moodforaday]

40. Okay, so what's Kerry's record since

the election? Is he standing right next to Obama? Conyers? Cynthia McKinney? His should be putting up the strongest opposition, but he won't.

[karynnj]

76. Obama? I think if you look at the Senate record, you will find that

Kerry HAS voted with you MORE often than Obama. Kerry is more mainstream than Conyers and McKinney - I prefer thatn though you probably don't.

Kerry has been a very stong coherent voice on many issues. He has even articulated a detailed Iraq exit plan - more complicated as the situation is more mixed up, but consistent with his earlier plan. In what should be a liberal litmus test he has said that the US needs to unambiguously say NO LONG TERM BASES. It's a perfect litmus test because it seperates those who are in favor of Bush's empire from those who genuinely want to get out of a very bad situation.

[The Night Owl]

11. I disagree...

The decisions a soldier makes are typically based on amoral considerations.

The argument that a soldier must always fight for what is right could very easily land the US in a lot of impossible situtations around the world.

[MoonRiver]

44. Well said.

I feel completely betrayed by Kerry's quickly forgotten promise to "fight for me". His hard working supporters were betrayed because he wanted to squirrel away our money for another romp in the presidential campaign fun palace. I will NEVER AGAIN trust him.

[LittleClarkie]

71. Prove that if you would

And explain exactly how he was supposed to fight the results. People say fight in such general terms but never say how.

Prove that the money he had left over was from folks like y'all.

Most of it was primary money. Some of it was GELAC. Prove that most of the GELAC money didn't go toward lawyers spread out across the country.

People make these allegations based on what they imagine is going on and on a few comments from people like Donna Brazille right after the election. Donna should talk, btw. I just took a look over at OpenSecret.org and the FEC website. Gore had 12 million left over after the campaign. So did Kerry.

Kerry has been giving out money to:
Dean when he became Chairman,
the DCCC
Gregoire in Washington for her recount
the runnoff elections in Louisiana

And if some of it was squirreled away, tell me that isn't exactly what Gore did in 2000.

As of October 2004, the GELAC was at 3 million. So far the FEC doesn't have more current numbers, but it still looks like much of Kerry's leftovers were NOT from GELAC, or the general election. They were from the primaries.

In addition, if much of it was primary money, then it was given to Kerry by folks who actually supported HIM and weren't just ABB. Others have said that some of this money was from ABB as well, saying they switched to giving to Kerry once their guy went belly up and it was clear Kerry was the guy. Well then, they should have realized that he couldn't use primary money in the general election, and waited until after the primary season to contribute to him. If they did not, then it wasn't his fault he could no longer spend that money during the general election and had it left over. As I've said, there are signs that it's being contributed here and there.

It has also been said that Kerry gave more money to the DNC during the 2004 election year than any presidential candidate ever has before. He gave out all he was asked for, he said. If others thought they should have gotten some more, then they should have asked.

Trust him or don't. I do. But I do wish that folks who make these kinds of statements had the numbers to back up what they're saying.

[FreedomAngel82]

50. And look at what they did to Al Gore

Do you think it would've helped any? They had "riots" and the like with Gore. Don't forget Bolton's role in that.

[SharonAnn]

70. Don't forget Bolton's role AND Roberts' role! Guess they both get

a big payoff for thier "stopping" the vote count in florida 2000.

[NoBushSpokenHere]

54. Very well said n/t

[PSPS]

4. Yes, but...

Kerry would have at least retained the respect of his supporters if he hadn't scurried away with his tail between his legs (and $15 million of our dollars) like he did.

But I think you're wrong too in that you're saying that if the fight isn't going to be easy, why bother? Even if he were to be pilloried in the press, does that somehow obviate the need to stand up for the right thing?

[The Night Owl]

14. I am not against standing up for the right thing.

What I am saying is that Kerry, as one of the candidates, had nothing to gain by personally challenging the election. If there was a chance to prove fraud and change the results of the election, others could have and would have done that for Kerry.

[ginnyinWI]

15. I believe his real supporters still retain respect for him.

I have even more respect for John Kerry now than before election day, for his persistence in fighting the BFEE, undaunted.

I also have confidence that he knew more about the situation than any of us did, and because of that, knew the right decision to make. He would not have been intimidated by the press or public opinion, as his life story shows.

As for the money, that old cannard has been debunked many times already.

[fedupinBushcountry]

37. And who says?

Kerry hasn't retained that respect of his supporters, the few here on DU, and the blogosphere that never really supported him in the first place, get real. You don't speak for ALL the Kerry supporters.

He never walked away from anything, he has been out their fighting continuously, and also giving money to Dems that are running in '05 and '06, but why bother repeating the facts to people who will never listen anyway. Very sad, and not helping the party at all. :argh:

[FreedomAngel82]

51. That's not the point

The point is there is a right way and a wrong way to do things. If you make a public out cry they'll do a Gore on you. You have to do things underground. Look at what got done this time around. How do we know Kerry isn't doing anything behind the scenes? We don't.

[bmcatt]

6. And how much more would have come to light?

Ok, let's say I accept the premise that challenging the results wouldn't have changed the outcome... But, given what we now know (and all that continues to come out about the extent to which the '04 election was stolen), wouldn't there have been a different public perception?

Everyone knows (and knew) that, regardless of how you characterize it, the Supreme Court intervened in the '00 election. It's not something that was barely mentioned. It had damn near continuous coverage. Apply that same approach to a contested '04 election.

What would be different? Hmmm?

[moodforaday]

41. Exactly.

The 2000 election at least remains in memory as controversial, but the 04 results have somehow managed to pass as legit. Which is worse: knowing (or at least strongly suspecting) that an election was stolen, or having no idea that it was?

[FreedomAngel82]

52. I remember seeing a poll recently

that said a lot of the public (forty or something percent) believe that Bush stole the last election. Does anybody have that poll?

[bluestateguy]

7. Some people spend a little too much time at DU

and a little too much time at coffeehouses in San Francisco, or at college teach-ins or among friends who are just like they are. When you insulate yourself like that you start to believe that the rest of the country most deficiently thinks like you do and that your ideas will always prevail.

[brentspeak]

8. There was perhaps only one thing that Kerry could have

immediately called attention to the day after the election: the Warren County Lockdown. I'm not sure how much information about that incident he was given; maybe it wasn't brought to his attention.

Besides that, though, there was not much Kerry could have said to justify claiming "fraud", even if fraud was committed.

[blm]

10. Actually, its worse than that - They'd have DESTROYED all evidence within

a matter of hours if Kerry even hinted at challenging. The GOP controls all the county judiciaries except for Cuyahoga.

The judiciary and government corruption in Ohio is even more massive than Florida.

We needed to get what evidence we could in their less guarded moments.

[flpoljunkie]

25. Not only that, software code can be written to self destruct. We're f*cked

if we can't fix this before 2008--let alone 2006.

[blm]

30. That's the real urgency but dumasses want to blame Kerry instead.

Completely negating the problem with the media and the machines - Just perfect to play into the GOP's hands. They are SO dumb.

[flpoljunkie]

47. Remember what Avi Rubin said in an op-ed right before the '04 election!

http://www.avirubin.com/vote/op-ed.html

An Election Day clouded by doubt

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.voting27oct27,1,595879.story

By Avi Rubin

Originally published October 27, 2004

ABOUT 50 MILLION Americans will cast their ballots for president on touch-screen terminals Tuesday.

If my experience as an election judge is any guide, voters will love these machines, which are generally easy to use and which easily accommodate voters who have disabilities or do not speak English. And if my experience as a computer scientist is any guide, those voters will not realize just how dangerous it is to rely on these machines to conduct a free and fair election with a reliable result.

Voting on a direct recording electronic voting machine, or DRE, is in many ways similar to transferring money from one account to another at an automated teller machine. But there is one critically important difference: no receipt. There will be no physical record produced that could later be used by your local election board to prove how you intended to vote.

After you cast your ballot on a DRE, the only official record of your choices will be the electronic record within the system itself. You will not be asked to look at a piece of paper that confirms your candidate selections. You will not leave that piece of paper behind for use in case of a recount.

Why is this a problem?

Without paper ballots that can be physically examined, the only recount possible is a review of the votes recorded by the DRE system itself. And if those votes were recorded incorrectly, no recount will fix the error. The incorrect result could never be detected, much less corrected.

[FreedomAngel82]

53. If there is no proof George Bush won

how do people know he did? The exit polls all said differently. There is no proof so isn't this an illegit election?

[flpoljunkie]

84. The results showed Bush won in Ohio, rigged or not, and no way to prove

otherwise!

[cprise]

12. They weren't laughing when Gore challenged.

I agree that the conglomerate media are worse than uselss, whose interests lie in manufacturing consent for public self-impoverishment and low-intensity war.

That does not mean you cannot get anything past them.

Corporate power now dominates both ends of the consent cycle: news broadcasting and voting. Change in these areas is not likely unless someone sticks up for the truth, becoming entrenched their lives if necessary. Perfunctory ridicule from insiders doesn't stand a chance against real committment.

As for Kerry, I won't be voting for him anymore.

[zulchzulu]

33. Gore won the popular vote...remember?

It's kind of different...

[karynnj]

77. The situation was extremely different

1) Gore won the popular vote by 500,000. The official numbers showed Kerry losing by over 2 million.

2) Instead of around 118,000, there were only about 365 votes seperating the candidates in FL - with known problems (the list below - just from memory) almost entirely in Democratic areas.

- The felon list created by a Texas company identified over 5000 people (almost all black) as felons - who weren't - denying them the right to vote. (Given the fact that 90+% of all blacks voted for Gore - even a 10% turnout of these people leads to a Gore win.

- Butterfly ballots - in addition to being normally hard to use, there were rumours in the Jewish community that some were printed so they didn't line up with the punches - making it even harder to vote correctly.

- Inner city Jacksonville had more than half it's ballots for President rejected

- Haitian were not given in-language directions for voting

- Road blocks, comments on amount of id needed, and other voter supression was employed in black areas.

3) Clinton was President and the Attorney General was a Democrat

4) FL supreme court had a majority of justices appointed by Democrats, unlike in Ohio

5) The country was not at war - with a major military action planned for the week after the election

6) The press was far less in the Republicans pocket

I doubt Kerry was afraid they would mock him as a sore loser - he had been called far worse things many times in his life. It seems quite likely that he would have won a fair election - with everyone having an equally easy time voting. This - in spite of the most biased media in my life time.

I don't think the DNC would have backed Kerry if he opted to challange the election. There was no proof -of the sort that could be taken to court - that was large enough to change the results. The Democratic party would have been damaged by a fight that appeared unwarranted by the majority of people. Kerry has been known throughout his career as a very dillagent proscecutor who meticulously built cases. But he can't prove votes shifted on machines without paper trails, or claim votes not cast because people could not spend 10 hours in line. What he could do was to attempt to collect as much information as possible and interest people in fixing the problem for next time.

Why do I say interest people, rather than fix it himself? Two reasons - elections are run at local levels and need to be fixed there and at the state level. Kerry can motivate people to become involved in this at a local area and they can create change. The second reason is that Kerry with Boxer and H. Clinton have written legislation that would fix some of the problems that are national in scope. But getting this to the floor in a Republican dominated Senate will be difficult. (From my point of view, his use of his list to push people to work in their towns and states has more chance of working - esp if Dean and others push this too.)

[Botany]

13. But by his not fighting he let the media and the * admin spin the

story that we are just "cry babies who can't accept that bush
won." I live in Columbus, OH and saw and heard the elction
crimes first hand .... He promised to fight but did nothing.

Look he knows about New Mexico and has all but admitted he
it was a fix ..... In N.M all precincts with optical scan
technology went to *. Even ones that voted for Gore in 2000
and had more registered democrats in '04.

When he said no retreat no surrender .... I believed him.

[glitch]

20. I sometimes wonder what Bruce Springsteen thinks.

He campaigned a lot for Kerry, even associating one of his songs with the campaign. That's a significant contribution. Has he said anything?

I think Kerry's an excellent man, but if he lets the fraWd lie as is he will go down in history as a tragic figure, on the level of Neville Chamberlain. Good men befuddled by evil.
And I think that would be heartbreaking, because I admire him and his family and they deserve better.

[karynnj]

78. Yes, Kerry was at a Springsteen concert in Boston

From the news stories - Kerry was applauded by the crowd when he came in. Springsteen made some nice comments to/about Kerry and some pointed negative Bush comments.

I think, as time goes on, if Kerry is remembered, it will be as someone who did fight - against great odds - for the principles he believed in often with few allies at his side. In some ways, as some one who took on controversial causes, the unusual thing is that he got so far. How Kerry is seen depends on who wins the future. If the RW agenda from Nixon to Reagan to the Bushes is discredited at some future time, Kerry who fought all 4 of them will be seen as a heroic figure who demanded that our government obey its own laws and international law. If the RW controls history, Kerry will probably be erased from history other than as the Democratic 2004 candidate.

I don't buy the Chamberlain argument as valid - as Chamberlain had the power to do otherwise.

[glitch]

83. I hope you are right. nt

[zulchzulu]

21. I've been saying this for months...

The main myth is that he did nothing after the election. He and his legal team did plenty. He has spoken out about election reform many times since.

People somehow think that he should have just shown up with a dozen Glocks and held Chimpy hostage until he relinquished the Election to Kerry. It's like some people live in a clueless fantasy world...

[Rufus T. Firefly]

22. But he promised all the votes would be counted.

He conceded before that was done. The least he could have done is wait for Ohio's votes to be fully counted. He said he was a fighter, but he stayed in the corner and gave up.

Oh, they would have made fun and called him names? So that's a good reason to not do what's right?

I admit that Kerry would have lost either way, but at least stand up to the bastards.

[zulchzulu]

29. A concession speech is NOT legally binding...

Kerry and his legal team DID try to count the votes...which were not counted BY THE VOTING MACHINES...

You can't count air and call it a vote. You can't count exit polls and call them votes.

Many people over the years have made a concession speech and had the election turn over in their favor with a recount. A concession speech is merely a formality...and is not legally binding.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

62. Why didn't he talk about the machines BEFORE the election?

If he had, then maybe there would have been just a little bit of attention paid afterward. Now they're going to be there for the next election, too, so we can have ANOTHER one stolen.

I know the speech isn't binding - but what would it have looked like if by some miracle he wound up winning?

[karynnj]

79. His job during the campaign was to convince people he should be President

He had very little press time - he needed to introduce himself and his agenda. None of the other primary candidates addressed the voting issues. This was not the candidates job.

In retrospect, the local DNC should have worked this issue everywhere to ensure their states were ok. Or Al Gore might have been a great person to lead a bi-partisan effort- he had made a spectacular (final) concession speech where he stopped contesting the election that he almost certainly won for the good of the country.

Clearly, rather than bashing Kerry we need to fix the problem.

If there was definite proof or if in a recount he had won, I think Kerry's concession - where he still talked about continuing to fight for causes - would have been a sad moment before a second speech joyously accepting the job and probably promising to try to heal the country.

[flpoljunkie]

24. There's still no way to prove manipulation in the mother computers; hidden

in the propietary, secret software code of the tabulating mother computers, and there's not a damn thing we can do about it now or then.

We must have paper trail with mandatory random audits, along with an end to voter suppression or we will never win another election in what is left of this democracy.

[OneTwentyoNine]

26. He must have thought so when he hit us all up for ONE more contribution...

Thats what really pissed me off,he was going to fight and knew it would come down to the wire. He sent a plea for more money knowing what his campaign would have to do shortly after the election.

Well we all know what they did,they packed up and called it a day....

[Rufus T. Firefly]

31. He ended with a LOT of money in the bank.

How about, I don't know, SPENDING IT!

[LittleClarkie]

57. You mean like

on the recount in Washington for governor?

or

on the runoff elections in Lousiana?

or

on the DCCC for the next election in 2006?

or

on Dean when he became DNC chairman?

or

on the lawyer in Ohio who still has a lawsuit pending, which is at the moment being stonewalled by the Republicans?

Stuff like that?

What's alot of money to you, btw. Gore had about 8 million left over, which he didn't cough up until he knew who the next nominee would be. Kerry had 15 million, which he has been spending on the above.

Sorry, he thought he was gonna have to recount like Gore in Florida in 2000. Turned out he was fubar in a new and different way in 2004. Such is life for those without ESP. What happened to the GELAC money, I dunno. I'm still trying to confirm if it was Kerry or the DNC that collected that. IF the DNC, then they probably kept it for candidates for 2006. Or perhaps the 17000 lawyers we heard about being all over the country needed traveling expenses paid. That hasn't been made clear, and so I'm not going apeshit about it.

Someone else here said something about a bazillion. Are you also dealing in make-believe numbers?



Here's one article I've found so far about the legal fund for recounts.
http://www.portlandphoenix.com/features/this_just_in/documents/04210299.asp

"The fundraising free-for-all kicked into high gear after a September 30 decision by the Federal Election Commission (FEC), which said, in response to a Kerry-campaign inquiry, that it’s legal for the campaign’s General Election Legal and Accounting Compliance Fund (GELAC) to pay for post-election recount expenses. Every presidential campaign maintains a GELAC to handle the ghastly business of complying with the gazillion state and federal laws regulating elections and campaign finance. As of the FEC’s decision, the Kerry-Edwards GELAC had $3.4 million cash on hand. The Bush-Cheney fund had $6 million.

That difference isn’t nearly as lopsided as the parties’ total spending for the 2000 recount. Bush raised and spent $13.8 million on the Florida-recount effort, compared to Gore’s $3.2 million. Bush’s costs included, according to a Washington Post analysis, $1.9 million for travel-related expenses, $1.2 million for salaries, and $1.5 million for legal fees. Both sides raised the money through special 527 organizations set up after the election. (Yes, that’s right, Bush gained the presidency thanks to the kind of "shadowy" group he now claims to abhor. See "The $50 Million Dems," News and Features, July 23."

And this from Opensecrets.com

http://www.opensecrets.org/presidential/summary.asp?ID=N00000245

Total Receipts: $326,236,288
Total Spent: $310,013,730
Cash on Hand: $16,222,557
Debts: $4,438,705
Date of last report: December 31, 2004
All totals include compliance fund receipts

Read that again. All totals include compliance fund reciepts. When I clicked on "compliance fund" it took me to an explanation of GELAC funds.

So, after debts paid, he has approx 12 million, including GELAC. 4 million more than Gore. Oooh ah. The horror. Yeah, that counts as a ton o money.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

60. He was asking for money the weekend before the election.

SOME of us gave more than we could afford, because we care about our country. So the total money may not seem like much in political terms, but our individual donations sure as hell meant a lot.

My point is - why ask for money with that little time left? He wasn't broke - that last fund drive sure didn't bring in 12 million.

Actually, I'd say 12 million IS "a ton of money" when a lot of Americans make minimum wage.

[LittleClarkie]

63. Alot of the leftover money was from the primary

which he couldn't by law use in the general election.

As of the end of October, according to one report I just looked up, he had about 3 million, which wouldn't have been enough for the kind of Gore style recounts they were expecting, but didn't get close enough in any one state to need.

The things that would have flipped the election, like finding evidence of Diebolding, wasn't something that the FEC had approved GELAC for. They approved using GELAC for recounts. That's the only FEC decision I see regarding GELAC and Kerry.

Haven't you ever prepared for something, only to have something else occur that you didn't expect?

As for 12 million being alot of money, well, if Gore and Kerry are any indication, 12 million are about par for the course at the end of a campaign.

[LittleClarkie]

66. Here's the FEC's listing of K/E's GELAC fund

with various images and pdfs to download.

To remove the guesswork of exactly how much was in there and when.

http://images.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/fecimg/?C00385070

[LittleClarkie]

36. What they THOUGHT they were going to have to do anyway

Sorry, I didn't know clarvoyance was required in someone running for prez.

Your answer is the pat, easy one that most people give. But they never tell me how they expect him to fight. All I get is vague platitudes about how somehow, he was supposed to fight. With what? He wasn't even in as good a position as Gore had been.

[OneTwentyoNine]

48. Huh...Why don't you ask John??

For some strange reason I didn't keep the several E-mails that I got from the Kerry camp wanting money for the likly battle. It was spelled out in the Emails,maybe John still has them around somewhere.

[LittleClarkie]

59. Okay, I just looked up GELAC

and had it explained to me that each campaign has one, and that they were preparing to use theirs for recounts that never came. Except in Ohio, where it was established that a recount wasn't gonna change things. You can't count air votes: votes that were never cast, or that were flipped.

Kerry's receipts by the end of 2004, including the GELAC:
Total Receipts: $326,236,288
Total Spent: $310,013,730
Cash on Hand: $16,222,557
Debts: $4,438,705
Date of last report: December 31, 2004
All totals include compliance fund receipts

He had about 12 million.

On the same site, I just looked up Al Gore's total receipts and found:

2000 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE
Al Gore

Total Receipts: $132,804,039
Total Spent: $120,031,205
Cash on Hand: $12,772,827
All totals include compliance fund receipts

Almost the same amount on hand, minus Kerry's debts.

So why weren't folks screaming at Al Gore?

[bvar22]

32. The POINT IS:

That the Ohio Election Fraud SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONTESTED WELL BEFORE Election Day.

The Democratic Party was WELL INFORMED about BBV and other means to suppress the Democratic vote. They were informed that OHIO would be a specific trouble spot with Blackwell promising to deliver Ohio to Bush*. The Democratic Party had over a year to fight this battle well before the election. The Democratic Party had information that was much more specific and supported than the August 6th memo......and they DID NOTHING!!!!!

The fiasco in Ohio was the DIRECT result of the FAILURE of the Kerry Campaign and the Democratic Leadership to address the situation in Ohio BEFORE the election. The GRASSROOTS were there and fighting. DU was fighting well over 1year before the election.
The Democratic Leadership & the Kerry Campaign were AWOL!!!


For those of you that are making military analogies, who is directly responsible for the failure to prepare for KNOWN threats before an attack that results in the loss of the battle?

[OneTwentyoNine]

34. Yup and wait until Pres elections in 08....

Same shit different year. Seems that Dems in office just couldn't in their wildest dream think that Repukes could EVER do something as horrible as rig an election. Brother,those idiots need to wake THE HELL UP!!

Wonder how DEMS explained away CNN changing their OWN Ohio exit polling results showing Kerry leading by 2 points to being behind by 2 points at 2:00 AM??????

[zulchzulu]

35. What a silly...ah...um...

I've seen all kinds on Monday Morning Quarterback excuses...but this is just precious.

The Ohio vote should have been contested BEFORE the election? Do you understand how stupid that would look like politically?

Maybe you forgot that there were hundreds of lawyers in Ohio and other projected trouble spots before and on Election Day.

Do some homework:
http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=kerry+ohio+vote+2004+lawyers&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

Read this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62645-2004Oct25.html

Snip (from Oct 25, 04):
"But Democrats, and some election officials as well, say the most potentially disruptive action could be Republican challenges of voters' eligibility filed over the past few days. Although some of the more than 35,000 challenges have been withdrawn or rejected by county officials, about 25,000 are pending.

The Democratic Party and the Kerry-Edwards campaign sent letters Monday to Ohio's 88 county election boards asking them to dismiss the challenges, arguing that they are "unfair" and "arbitrary" and that the Ohio GOP has not provided sufficient evidence under state law that the voters challenged are ineligible."

[bvar22]

38. NO, YOU do some work.

Just read the archives at DU. For OVER 1 YEAR, the problems that WOULD become REAL in Ohio were WELL KNOWN. The disaster in OHIO was PREDICTED, and the Democratic Leadership was WARNED!! Had these problems been addressed BEFORE THE ELECTION, there would have been no need to contest the vote.

*The problem with BBV and hackable tabulators WAS WELL KNOWN before the election!!!

*Efforts to supress the Democratic WERE WELL KNOWN befor the election!!!

*The time to do something about these threats was BEFORE THE ELECTION!!!

This is NOT Monday Morning Quaterbacking!
The EXACT disaster that occurred in Ohio was PREDICTED and FORECAST here at DU, and many other places. I DIRECTLY warned the Kerry campaign and the Democratic party leadership about the problems in Ohio, as did MANY other people! HELL, the Florida election was the blueprint for OHIO!

I WILL NOT accept the excuse from the Democratic Party leadership that: "WE didn't know!" "Hey, there was nothing we could do." BULLSHIT!



The proper time to adress KNOWN THREATS is BEFORE the BATTLE!!!!

Catastrophic Failure of Leadership!

[glitch]

42. You are correct -- and the candidates that realize this and ACT on it will

be the next leaders of the Democratic Party. Needless to say, but I'll say it anyway, if our leaders don't realize this there will be no Democratic Republic, and thus no Democratic Party in real terms.

Whoever takes fraWd on will be the next leader, it is there for the taking, but it requires an awful lot of courage.
Right now my heart is with Conyers and Waters and Lee and Tubbs-Jones and Boxer and some others.
Anybody who wants to make up for losses in 2004 can join them, because the fight is already on and they could use some allies.

[zulchzulu]

74. Take a reading course, son

I guess you didn't read the articles I posted. Whatever, dude.

[moodforaday]

39. He could have won

by opposing Bush somewhat more convincingly than he bothered to. I stayed all night to watch each debate (they began at 3 am local time) and was literally pulling my hair out at the weakling arguments he was using. Most of what he was saying was right, but two hours browsing DU would have given him more facts and stronger ammunition than he ever used. The vibes he was giving m,e I never really felt he wanted to win or sincerely expected to.

[JAbuchan08]

45. At least we would have had a presidential candidate forcing the issue

that's better than the nothing that we got...

[ChiciB1]

46. KERRY DID WIN!!! n/t

[FreedomAngel82]

49. He had to have proof

We all know that of course. And what proof is there he could've used? Remember when Barbara Boxer challenged the Ohio election they all cried "consperiacy theories"? Isn't there some type of forum he could sign to move the process a long though? Has he signed that?

[Spock_is_Skeptical]

55. butbutbutbut.... Kerry *did* win.

And yes, he could have done more than he did, to put it lightly.
;)

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

56. The issue is not whether Kerry could have won

The issue is that Kerry could have made the cornerstone of our democracy- the validity of our elections- an issue. He could have brought it front and center. Something was rotten in the state of Denmark. I have always wondered - what was the rush to concede? There were a zillion prima facie instances of election fraud, manipulation, malfeasance, incompetence, civil rights denials, etc.

We had already been screwed once. I do respect Al Gore a hundred times more than John Kerry because HE FOUGHT! And when there was no more to fight ( the appointment of Bush by the Supreme Court) he acceded to the inevitable.

I think John Kerry is vain. I think he was more concerned about his immediate portrait if he protested as a sore loser and he did not have the internal fortitude of Al Gore to withstand that. I don't give a shit if he slunk away to fight another day - the fight was THAT DAY!!!!

[sendero]

64. You get real..

.... nobody ever said the election outcome would be changed. But SOMEONE has to step up and do what has to be done, which is take this whole thing to the courts on several frontsand publicly air out this fraud.

Clearly, it's too big a job for Kerry.

[bread_and_roses]

65. Why didn't he AT LEAST raise holy hell about the voter suppression?

That was not unprovable, that did not require any high-tech secret codes - it was plain, obvious, demonstatable, documentable old-fashoned voter suppression engineered by R Party officials.

But that's right - I forgot - Kerry did not stand up with the CBC in 2000, did he? When the same racist disenfranchisemnt occured. Those minority Rights were not as important to him as the next Election, I guess...what other reason could there be for his and the rest of the Dems silence?

But maybe if he'd stood up then, the course of the next election could have been altered...at the least, he could have stood up and called the 2004 Ohio election into question on those grounds without looking like "just" a sore loser.

Sometimes it's not even about winning - sometimes it's about saving Democracy - such as by stating that the deliberate disenfranchisement of selected populations renders an election invalid and demanding a fair election.

Every time I read someone here scorning low participation at the Polls among Minorities and the poor, I think of how most of the Dem leadership - now twice in a row - rolled over and the vote to be denied in poor and minority neighborhoods without a fight.

[bvar22]

68. I'm with you!

The Democratic Party Leadership had 4 LONG YEARS to do something.

[karynnj]

81. Kerry did not stand up

Gore asked the Senators not to. No Senator did. No Democrat ran on this in the primary - not Clark, not Dean -

So blame all the Senators in 2000 and all the Democrats who ran in 2004 - or realize that you are blaming Kerry for things you don't blame others for.

Also, blame Gore for not staying to be the leader of a campaign to fix the problem - or don't blame Kerry, who has spoken about the issue more than Gore has.

[gokar]

67. You are probably right....I remember "Sore Loserman" in 2000

[Tigress DEM]

69. Not to criticize.... I do wish he'd tried, but I'm mad at the crooks ---

not the man who was robbed.

[LittleClarkie]

72. Like blaming a rape victim

for not fighting hard enough

[Dr Fate]

95. Kerry is not the rape victim- we are. n/t

n/t

[McCamy Taylor]

80. I'll bet he asked MSM for exit poll results, they said "What exit polls?"

And that was when he knew that protesting the elction results was going to be futile.

If the networks wouldnt give him the exit polls, he had no case. Even with them, it would have been tough, without them, it would have been impossible, and at that time, the networks thought they were going to get the media ownership rule changes that * had promised them as long as they helped * steal the election . In hindsight, I'll bet they wish they had done it differently, since the day after * got proclaimed George II for a second term, * took back his promise.

[Dr Fate]

87. The DNC claimed they were going to conduct their own exit polls.

In fact, I personally was told to tell people that as a fundraiser.

"We are going to do our own exit polls so Fox news cant call it for Bush" is what I was told to say.

All the talk was just talk.

[mattclearing]

82. If he had brought attention to the shenanigans personally, I disagree.

I think it could have gotten very interesting if he outright challenged the results and raised doubts about Blackwell.

Instead, he carefully monitored the situation and opted to keep his mouth mostly shut.

It pretty much proved all of those windsurfing ads right.

[LittleClarkie]

88. I don't remember those windsurfing ads showing Kerry as

a somewhat obsessive/compulsive former prosecutor who wasn't coming out unless he had something that he could take to court.

Do you have any idea how much I hate it when someone on our side agrees with the GOP because it's somebody they don't particularly care for? Rather like Common Dreams quoting the Boston Herald, a RW rag, on an article that was nothing more than an opinion piece disguised as news, because they both agree on Kerry.

[Dr Fate]

86. Kerry and DEMS with media access should have told the truth about Ohio

Instead they allowed the media to frame the "glitches & irregularities" it as a "Micheal Moore conspiracy theory."

DEMs with media access could have put a national spotlight on election fraud, but chose to side with the framing of the GOP/media instead of the grass-roots GOTV DEMs who saw what really happened.

I'm tired of DEMs who agree with Bush/media instead of their base.

Same thing with the Downing Street Memo- DEMs with media access apparently agree with Bush/media that it is "old news"- instead of listening to the base and spotlighting it.

[Raiden]

89. It's not so much the fact that he didn't contest

it's the fact that by saying he would fight 'til the last vote was counted -- then he conceded -- and abandoned us. He said NOTHING, no thanks for the support, for the donations, he disappered for MONTHS when we needed him the most.

We stood up for him every time someone called him a spineless flip-flopper. And then how did he repay our gratitude...

FLIP - I will fight until the last vote is counted...

FLOP - Say hello to your once-again president GEORGE W. BUSH!!!


That was the ultimate stab in the back!! We fought for him tooth and nail in the campaign, and he refused to fight for us in return! It would be so hard for me to forgive him for that! And he didn't even back Conyers!


Kerry doesn't speak for me anymore! He has yet to earn my trust back!

[LittleClarkie]

91. Forgetting of course

the funeral right after the election that touched so many.

the "man in exile" video on November 19th.

the help in Washington for the Governor

the help in Lousisana for runoff elections

and the lawsuit still pending in Ohio that's being stonewalled by the Repubs.

Yeah, he disappeared alright.

Until every vote was counted ... as if he thought he was going to get Gore's deal. He didn't get Gore's deal, or even as good a situation.

If Ohio had been close, he'd have been in there just like Gore was.

But his problem wasn't counting and recounting.

It was the votes that were never cast. He's spoken out on that since.

It was the votes that were flipped. He's spoken out on that since as well.

He still speaks for me. I still have his back.

[lojasmo]

90. Wouldn't want to look bad for the press now would we?

Especially when it's only democracy on the line. :eyes:

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

92. ok- here is something he had control over

Why didn't someone say (Kerry or anyone in his campaign) " I thought he was going to debate the President, not Quasimodo - what the !@##$ was that thing on the President's back?"

A little know fact is that there are many deaths every year that can be blamed on decorum - people who choke politely to death at the table in the steakhouse because they just don't want to disrupt everyone else's nice little dinner. That is how I see the Democratic Party right this moment. And that was the major problem with Kerry's campaign. It was run by the decorous Mary Beth Cahill. The Dems need to stand up and damn the torpedos. Forget about image - forget about perception!! Speak up, speak up often, forget decorum, forget diplomacy, forget tact.

In the immortal words of Stephen Colbert - "The facts have a liberal bias"

[LittleClarkie]

94. I liked it when he told Letterman that in the debate

they'd finally agreed that Bush could debate Kerry sitting on Cheney's lap.

And when Edwards referred to the bulge as Bush's battery pack.

[SouthernDem2004]

93. Sometimes you fight the good fight just because its the right thing to do.