Kerry's Midnight Concession

[SuzyC]

Can somebody please tell me why the good Senator conceeded the election so quickly? So many people who should be on our side are very emotional and irrational about this and actually hate him for it. They seem to feel totally betrayed and used because they felt that Senator Kerry would fight the good fight, and instead he appeared to cave almost immediately. I have no good answer for them. Will you help me?

[karynnj]

1. He didn't concede at midnight

Kerry's concession was around noon the next day - the second slowest concession in modern times. Gore was behind 535 votes in Florida. Kerry was behind around 118,000. There were nowhere near enough provisional ballots to win.

Even now, Kennedy's article shows there were major voter suppression actions by the Republicans - but these led to votes not being cast. It was not like Florida 2000 where there were additional votes that could be found. Kerry had nothing he could legally stand on.

[SuzyC]

3. I'm sorry

I guess it was Senator Edwards who came out at night and spoke to a small crowd. I do remember seeing both speeches. I've been getting beat up on by people quite a bit about this, and that "midnight concession" was a term that was used and stuck in my mind (thanks to the similar song title). Personally, I trust the Senator's judgement, and I think that had he not conceeded the next day, that the right wing noise machine was ready to ridicule him and his voters. It's just that this is being used to make him look weak, and my saying that there was nothing else he could do just wins me ridiculous smirks.

[blm]

4. Did Dean look weak when he conceded? No - it's expected. Did Clark look

weak when he conceded? No - it's expected. Did Gore look weak when he conceded? No - it's expected.

ALL democracies do it.

It's expected EVERYWHERE in the country except at some Dem forums where people are trying to pretend they're smart and have all the answers, NONE of which make a legal case.

[TayTay]

49. You might want to check the way back machine on Sen. Edwards

If memory serves, wasn't he also dealing with the news that his wife had breast cancer. I am not at all sure that he was talking to small crowds in the middle of the night. He might have been occupied trying to get treatment for his wife. Check sources on this.

[sandnsea]

2. Because that's the way elections work in America

If the votes aren't there, you concede. Over 2 years later, the votes still aren't there. People who weren't able to vote will never be votes. There's still no evidence of an actual machine that has been hacked. There's still no evidence that any irregularity amounted to enough votes to overturn the election, most of the irregularities amounted to less than 20 ballots. He conceded because the votes weren't there because that's the way elections in this country are done.

[fedupinBushcountry]

5. Karynnj is right

and not only that but he continued looking for that one piece of evidence or better yet a whistle blower. I know for a fact that stuff was still being sent into him, way after the election, he wanted everything he could get his hands on. But what was lacking was the evidence.

In Ohio he was up against laws that Blackwell put in himself and twisted to his full partisan way.

You know I was disappointed too when he decided to concede, but then I had to sit back and really think about it, and knowing that John Kerry knows a hell of a lot more then me, being a prosecutor and all I accepted it. I also knew that if that evidence came in time for him before that final day in Jan. that he would have used it. To this day we still do not have that proof, but I think we are getting closer.

[beachmom]

6. Because Bush won the election

It is proper for the person who lost to concede. You have to understand, outside this tiny DU bubble, NOBODY thinks the election is in dispute. He lost. BUT . . . there are problems with our electoral system that need to be rectified and he has diligently worked on this since he conceded. I guess I believe the story about the Church People who turned out to vote in record numbers. It jives with what I have seen. But 2004 is over, and the Independents and Swing Voters are mad as hell at the Bush Administration and the Republican Congress, so the Dem in '08 has a MUCH better chance of winning now that the Republican Mystique is no more.

[SuzyC]

8. Well I'm glad to know

that his was the 2nd slowest concession in modern times! That is some fuel. I think the fact that he had all these lawyers around the country had some very disappointed people expecting more, and it seems like nothing I tell them (or try to tell them) about what he has been doing makes any difference to them. They use this and the swift boat fiasco to maintain that Kerry is weak, and one (used to be) good friend (since 1969) claims (against all evidence) that she almost thinks he threw the election and it makes her blood pressure rise just to hear his name. I guess I just have to get used to this. Why do people hate him so? Persoanlly, I practically equate him with Jesus!

[blm]

9. I think you have a funny way of presenting your attacks on Kerry.

P U comes to mind.

[SuzyC]

10. I'm not attacking anyone.

I guess I'm just hormonal today, but an old friendship is going down because of this. I had hoped for some ammunition and support from this site and I got some.

[blm]

11. Every sentence had a barbed description of Kerry in it. That tactic of

wanting information has been a GOP staple - maybe you should consider that when you make such unkind statements as if they were true.

None of us think he's Jesus, Some of us are atheists.

We DO know that there isn't a lawmaker alive today who has done more to expose government corruption than John Kerry has and that is why so many GOP operatives target him still to this day.

[SuzyC]

13. I merely said

that he is like Jesus to me, and I should have explained that is because he has so much personal integrity. BTW, I am Buddhist, but this being a basically Christian country, I thought I would use the Jesus comparison. Sorry about the barbs, but his is what I'm up against.

[_dynamicdems]

39. I don't have a problem with anything you said.

You have obviously been subjected to a barrage of Kerry bashing and we all know what that feels like.

Jesus was a historical figure. No matter your religious affiliation, that is a fact that cannot be disputed. Take religion out of the discussion and JC was just a man with a message. He was crucified for that message by the conservatives of his day. Forget religion and you can see that Swiftboating was alive and well in biblical times.

Did JC really walk on water or did his followers just expect him to? Is much of the gospel just revisionist history? Who knows?

Just sayin'

[SuzyC]

42. I feel better now.

I'm glad you understand. Thank you for taking the time to post this.

[_dynamicdems]

44. Thank you for your courage. Good luck in your battles.

I'd rather face a pack of rabid dogs than a pack of angry pseudo-liberals armed with bitterness and wearing fact-proof vests. Courage! If there is anything I can do to help, let me know.

:hi:

[SuzyC]

46. You're right.

Even rabid dogs would have a lot more love in their hearts! And they would never even think of using a fact-proof vest!
Peace!

[globalvillage]

14. Sorry to hear about your friend.

With me, it's my mom and my aunt. We still speak, but it's strained. I just can't forgive them their vote, and for falling for the GOP spin about Sen Kerry. Freaking fox news.
Sad, isn't it?

[SuzyC]

17. Yes, it's sad.

Fox News not to blame this time. She understands what's going on. Just pig-headedness, I guess.

[Blaukraut]

12. wow, such worship!

Most Kerry supporters I've met only see JK as a great man, excellent politician, and fighter for democracy. You're a super supporter :wow:

[SuzyC]

16. OK. You're making fun of me.

But as I said, I'm Buddhist, so I don't see Jesus as the one and only son of God, but instead admire him as a very great man, of great personal integrity and wisdom. Perhaps it's an exaggeration then, but to find this in a modern politician is incredible.

[Blaukraut]

21. well, you could expect to be met with skepticism

Especially after the Kerry=Jesus remark. You may be a buddhist, but neglected to put that into the post as a disclaimer. Personally, I'm an atheist, so the equation you made bears no particular weight for me. However, you must realize that you may have appeared facetious, at the very least. Evidently you really do admire Senator Kerry, so welcome to our forum from someone who doesn't always have a way with words, either.

As to Kerry's midnight concession (which was a day after, NOT a midnight)- this subject has been beaten to death in GD and GDP time and time again. As a matter of fact, if you look in there, you'll find at least five threads in the last two days concerning just that. You will also find tireless explanations and links from Kerry supporters that continuously fall on deaf ears.
I'm glad you seem to really want to have some ammo to convince people such as your friend that they are wrong in hating Kerry. There is plenty to be found around here :-)

[SuzyC]

24. Thank you.

[SuzyC]

45. I'm glad I'm not the only one here

who doesn't have a way with words.:-) Thank you. I have a confession: I feel that I am a spiritual person, but I belong to no religion. However because people expect you to "be" something, I just say Buddhist rather than explain. I say that because if I were forced to join a religion, Buddhism would be the one I would choose. I like the concepts of karma and dharma and doing what is right.
Thank you for your welcome.

[karynnj]

15. All I can think of concerning your friend

is that she saw very little of the campaign because the media covered very little of it. About the only TV time Kerry had not filtered by the media was the convention and the debates. Even then the convention was covered for 3 hours on the networks instead of the 9 hours in prior years.

Ask her if she actually saw Kerry's convention speech - it was excellent, very hopeful, very visionary and it suggested another way this country should go. The MSM has since said it was all about Vietnam, which it wasn't. There was less than a minute on VN - and that included active duty, protesting. Ask her if she remembers Alexandra's or Vanessa's speeches.

Ask her if she watched the debates - Kerry was brilliant with truthful, well thoughtout answers on everything. His demeanor and manner was polite, respectful and Presidential. Even Bush's odd behavior was not able to get Kerry to react.

I think part of the negative feeling comes from the media. While giving Bush a pass on everything, they took the most negative opinion possible on everything Kerry did. Consider that during the RNC none of the media people commented that the purple heart bandaids were wrong - this sent a signal that Kerry deserved this ridicle. Coming from trusted, respected media people this likely made people question why the media didn't like Kerry.

[SuzyC]

18. Thanks for the excellent reply.

My friend lives in Italy now, so she has a different media. She voted for Kerry. She just hates him now. Go figure. From what I see on the blogs a lot of people are like that.
And you are so right on about the media.

[globalvillage]

20. "She just hates him now"

Why, because of the concession? If she doesn't get that's what's done when someone loses, I guess there's no good way to explain it.
Or is it something else?
I've met Sen Kerry, and I can't imagine that anyone could "hate" him unless their perception has been colored by the lies and distortions of the media. Or by other people who promote the lies and distortions of the media.
Sen Kerry is brilliant, kind, and funny, and he loves and believes in this country. I don't know anyone who has worked harder at defending the values America is supposed to stand for. And he's definitely un-hateable.
She hates him? I don't get it.

[SuzyC]

23. Yeah, I don't get it either.

She's very intelligent. I don't know who may have got to her. She deletes my email about it, I think. I'm hoping to change her mind before the next election. She wants Hillary. Hillary gives me the creeps.

[beachmom]

19. Hey SuzyC -- I know what you're doing (I used to do it)

You figure you'll put all of the attacks against Kerry on the table, and then challenge everyone to debunk them. Then you'll feel better. I used to ask questions sometimes about the most trivial things (so, like, is Kerry really part Irish, because he said so on Hardball in 2003, and really he's NOT Irish, so, like, was he telling the truth? -- P.S. there's Irish blood on his Mom's side, but I digress). Anyway, Tay Tay showed me this hilarious article of a joke JK made about his Jewish heritage and whether he had the "Matzo Balls" to attend a Boston Irish Breakfast. She was talking about how SO OVER this petty stuff she was.

At some point, you just have to set that stuff aside. Because if it stays in your head (Skull and Bones -- he THREW the election), then it's like the haters have already won. Look into your heart and see if there is a moment where Kerry did something that made you realize you could TOTALLY trust him. That, in fact, he's a good guy, and although you may disagree with him from time to time, there's that certain something about him that makes you want to be a supporter of his. Now in regards to Jesus, it's the OTHER guy who wants to be a Messiah. I was watching a NH event on C-SPAN, and this older lady was telling Kerry about how she had to extract her own tooth because she had no dental insurance and couldn't afford a dentist. He was truly pained by her story. At the end, she said "But the Lord will provide", and he wouldn't let that stand. He said "Well, we've got to do our job, too." No, Kerry is NOT interested in being some kind of savior -- he is at heart a very rational person who is looking to help people by rational means.

As for my light bulb story of Kerry, it was regarding Abu Ghraib. Andrew Sullivan had quoted a WH official of saying that there was an election about prison abuse, and that the other side didn't question it, and that now the issue was settled. Sully agreed, and then added the preposterous remark that "Kerry was complicit to torture". I was rave starking mad and came here for info, as well as researching what Kerry had said on the subject (he HAD spoken about it when it happened, and was very comfortable answering questions about it at Town Hall Meetings). Well, 6 months later the Joe Klein book came out bashing Kerry for essentially the same thing. So I'm sitting there watching Kerry get questioned on This Week about it, and his answer was absolutely, impeccably, factually right. It was like I had taken my research and e-mailed it to him 10 minutes earlier. He told the truth. He didn't embellish one iota. That was my moment, when I decided nothing would nag me about him anymore, at least not in a big way. Sure I still struggle with some of his positions (the Webb endorsement I'm still internalizing and analyzing right now); that's to be expected. But I certainly am at a point, where the petty, trivial stuff I can easily dismiss without a second thought.

[SuzyC]

25. Yes, you are absolutely right.

Thank you. As I said earlier, I guess I am just hormonal today. Usually I can deal with it much better. Thank you for your understanding.

[beachmom]

27. I get the hormonal thing. Given the female ratio of this forum, it's

amazing how civil we all remain!! Hope you feel better in a few days. And come in anytime if you need to get away from the haters.

[globalvillage]

7. There have been three close elections in my lifetime

before VP Gore 'lost' in 2000.

1960
Richard Nixon, who lost the popular vote by less than 120,000 votes, made his concession speech the day following the election.

1968
Hubert Humphrey, who lost the popular vote by less than 500,000 votes, made his concession speech the day following the election.

1976
Gerald Ford, who was a sitting president at the time of his defeat, made his concession speech the day following the election.


It's what's done when a candidate loses. Maybe it's the contrast with Gore's protracted battle that makes it seem that Sen Kerry conceded quickly.

Broke my heart just like it did for a lot of people, but I can't see what good it would have done to wait. It's not like he gave up when he gave the speech, though. He didn't.

Welcome to the JK forum, BTW.

[SuzyC]

22. This girl and I have been going at it

over at Kos. This is her latest reply to me:

"" * Here's what concerns me (0 / 0)
That people will start pushing Kerry as a viable candidate. He is not. He folded when a bully was pushing at him. There were 8 gatrillion complaints about wrong-doing in Ohio, waiting to be investigated. They knew that at the time.

He "didn't have all the evidence he needed"? Who ever DOES at the beginning of a trial? For anyone to defend his actions for one second might lead to people thinking he's a viable candidate. (I'm afraid he's delusional enough to think he is.)

Kerry's not standing up -- ensured that we lost that election. If he'd stood up, we might have won.

We need politicians who will STAND UP to jerks like Rove and every other person willing to steal elections.

I participated in the governor vote re-count here in 2004. I met Republicans who would NEVER lie, cheat, or steal to win. They were good people. Republicans aren't all bad, but we MUST stand up to those who are.

At no time, in no circumstance, is there any excuse for folding to a bully in politics. It just empowers them. Especially not at this time in our history, not for an issue as important as voting.

It's the "anti-fear-propaganda" solution: positive news: HeroicStories, free

by AllisonInSeattle on Sun Jun 04, 2006 at 11:37:03 AM PDT"

My friend in Italy is like this as well. I give up! I have better things to do with my Sunday afternoon.

[Blaukraut]

28. the girl is full of shit

"He "didn't have all the evidence he needed"? Who ever DOES at the beginning of a trial? For anyone to defend his actions for one second might lead to people thinking he's a viable candidate. (I'm afraid he's delusional enough to think he is.)"

What is she talking about? I've never seen a trial without evidence presented and entered into court records beforehand. The evidence is needed for a trial to even BEGIN! You cannot charge a person - hence not put him on trial - unless you have evidence. Good grief, I'm not a lawyer, nor am I a cop, but this much I know.
SuzyC, there's one argument you can blow right out of the water.

[SuzyC]

31. I know, but I don't think it is worth it.

I'm not planning on replying to her this time. It only bothers me that she will think she has won. Kerry is certainly worth defending, but these anti-Kerry people--I don't know what planet they are from! They just can't be reasoned with. I just hope they come around someday. As I recall, it took a while for people to see Gore with hope in their eyes again.

[globalvillage]

36. Most of what she says is her opinion.

Except for the parts that are just blatantly false.

Is this person an attorney? Sen Kerry was a prosecutor and knows what it takes to investigate and win in a court of law. He had plenty of attorneys working on '04 who determined there was not enough proof to warrant delaying his concession. The votes were just not there. There was no whistleblower, and there was no evidence that would stand up. Most of the problems with disenfranchisement were actually not illegal, which is a real shame, and what we need to be working to correct. Fucking Ken Blackwell. In what bizarre universe is the person responsible for making sure the vote is accurate also the head of one of the campaigns? Was that John Kerry's fault, too?

Evidence is gathered, and a case is made before a trial, BTW. No attorney in his right mind would go to court without a clear knowledge of his case. Nevertheless, there were and are legal cases regarding '04.

Wonder if maybe we should just close all our law schools and try cases in the court of public opinion by kossacks and DUers? Whatta ya think? And maybe I'll give brain surgery a try. I'm pretty smart, and it's not like it takes a br..., well OK, maybe not brain surgery.

[fedupinBushcountry]

37. You know

these whiners need to look at what they write before they post.

"we might have won."

So she is saying that Kerry should have not conceded because he might have won. Where is the logic ? She compares it to the election of Gov. in Washington, where the votes were just off by a few hundred. These people need to get real. She also doesn't mention that Kerry was the one that helped fund that recount in Washington. :crazy:

[SuzyC]

38. Thank you all!

I'm feeling so much better!!!!

[_dynamicdems]

43. Humphrey's loss was the first major dissapointment of my life.

I was just a child but I worked hard to see him elected, even going door to door with literature on Halloween night before the election. The heck with candy, I wanted a say in my government even then.

Kids hated Nixon. We all wanted Humphrey to win.

That was a hard defeat to take, being so young, but 2000 was much, much worse.

The protracted battle HURT. It hurt to hang on hope each and every day only to have those hopes shot down again and again. The coup de grace was when Gore finally threw in the towel, not because he didn't succeed, but because he threw us in with the towel.

Kerry did the honorable thing in conceding when he did. I'm thankful that he didn't drag our hearts through the mud any longer than necessary. I don't think I could have survived another protracted battle like 2000, expecially when the conclusion was undoubtedly a forgone one.

Kerry's concession hurt like Hell, but there was so much hope and determination behind his words. I'll never forget how it helped me to get off the couch, dry my tears and vow never to give up. That is the thing, Kerry made it very, very clear that he was conceding only the point of law at the MOMENT, but that he wasn't giving up and he wasn't giving in, not one inch.

[_dynamicdems]

26. Dems would have been hurt if he didn't concede when he did.

I think it would have hurt Democrats if he didn't concede. When he conceded the MSM was already harping on the fact that the numbers weren't there to support a dispute of the results of Ohio or of the election. I remember the Abrams Report specifically discussing how there was no legal recourse but to concede and that they hoped Kerry wouldn't drag it on too long.

If Kerry had refused to concede, Democrats would have been made to look like a bunch of poor sports and conspiracy nuts. I think it would have damaged Democratic credibility and I also think it would have really divided the party on national television.

Let's just say the senator had decided not to concede and to wait a couple of weeks, what do you think would have happened in those two weeks? Do you think all Dems would have gotten on board with his decision? I don't believe that for a second.

Kerry's decision was to concede the election but keep on with the fight. I honestly believe that, because of his decision, Democrats are in a stronger position today to regain Congress than we would have been had he created contention and division within the party.

After we take back Congress, an investigation on voter fraud can proceed with far more effectiveness than have previous efforts. With Congress on our side, we will also be able to change the election laws and get some true accountability. Kerry's efforts toward this have been thwarted in Congress because there simply isn't enough support for the measure at this time.

[SuzyC]

29. Exactly!

This is just what I wanted to hear! I hope you don't mind if I use some of it.
I agree with everything you say, and you say it well.
Thank you!

[beachmom]

30. Also, check out the way Berlesconi made a complete fool of

himself, when he refused to concede in the Italian election this year. It was an international fiasco with everyone laughing at him. Eventually, he had no choice but to concede as the winning party had already started to form a new government. THAT'S reality. Not this lefty conspiracy crap.

[SuzyC]

33. Thanks for this (she said, grinning)

I didn't know!

[_dynamicdems]

40. Great example! n/t

[karynnj]

32. Also remember the battle of Falujah started just after Nov 2.

If Kerry would have held out, the MSM would have likely accused him of not of being a "sore loser", but an unpatriotic demagogue unwilling to accept reality, who was responsible for the war inititive going badly. Everyone in the Democratic party would have been put on the spot and the vast majority would have deserted Kerry.

Conceding drives nothing in the process. The same electors would have been picked and Bush would still be in offce. Kerry and any prominent Democrats who sided with him would be political outcasts.

[SuzyC]

35. You are so right.

And that's right, that damn battle was planned for then. Has anyone seen the DVD called Occupation Dreamland? It's about that battle. Buzzflash carries it. I just got it for our library system. Now I'll probably have to fight to get it entered into the system so patrons can see it. There is a rightwinger in charge of the library collection.

[MH1]

34. My take -

Okay I read the other replies and I am going to post anyway what my first reaction was.

Many of those "so many people" are trolls. Many of them were ABB during 2004, not Kerry supporters at all. They just wanted Kerry to relieve them of the nightmare that is Bush, because he was the only one who possibly could (even many Naderites had a brief moment of sanity). When Kerry failed in that attempt, they simply had no more use for him, except as someone to blame for everything that went wrong in 2004. Yet if they had supported Kerry for who he is, for the qualities that make him an outstanding leader, they would have been more trusting of his judgement of the information that he had in front of him at the time - and that they still don't have. By turning on him immediately they show they never really supported him in the first place.

As to help - I think this article is best:
http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/blogs/tokaji/2006/06/back-to-ohio-rolling-stone-piece.html

This very educated expert demonstrates WHY it cannot be proven that the election was stolen. And with no proof, it would not have helped Democrats at all for Kerry to resist conceding. There was NO HOPE, based on the evidence, of overturning the results. The mantra across all of the media would have been "get over it." Not only would Kerry have been a laughingstock - which I think he would be fine with, if there was some value to come of it - but anyone else who stood with him would have been. If nobody stood with him, later it would be said that they hung him out to dry, and the repukes would make a laughingstock of the party out of that - only, of course, after Kerry had been safely put down. (The Democrats are so weak - they don't even back up their candidate!! yada yada...)

It was a no win situation. And I think these so called "friends" are either playing dumb or ... :shrug:

[SuzyC]

41. I'm glad I came here

where the voices of sanity reign supreme. You have made several excellent points in your post and you present your case very clearly. Thank you very much for your guidance.

[wisteria]

47. People who claim he conceded to quickly don't understand

the facts or the aftermath of trying to fight the results. I understood as soon as I saw the results. It was obvious to me. A 2.5 million difference in votes is not a close finish. questionable, but not necessarily illegal accusations of fraud and disenfranchisement can not be challenged.
These critics of Kerry's decision need to put everything in to perspective. Ask them this, what do they think would have happened if he didn't concede and challenged the election?
I can tell you IMO, he would have be encouraged by the party to not challenge, he would have been laughed at by much of America because he would seem to not be able to accept reality and his loss. The media would have supported Bush, the courts would have supported Bush and the administration would have rightly accused Senator Kerry of putting our country at risk because, during times of war, it is never a good thing to appear weak.in turmoil and distracted with a matter such as challenging Presidential election results.

[politicasista]

48. Don't feel bad

I have had to deal with the same garbage. It gets discouraging sometimes, but we have to stick together.

BTW: A belated welcome!:hi:

[TayTay]

50. The Senator conceded because his legal team told him he lost

and that he had no grounds on which to contest this election from a legal point of view. In March I went to this Dem training event in lovely Worcester. In attendance at a free-wheeling discussion of past elections was one Jack Corrigan, a Democratic advisor to Al Gore in 2000 who told Al that he SHOULD contest the Florida vote. Mr. Corrigan was a Chief advisor to one John Kerry in 2004 and told the Senator NOT to contest the vote in 2004 because he didn't have the evidence to back up fraud.

I heard this man say this and claim responsibility for the concession. I heard him briefly debate someone from the organizatin MassVotes and have a brief shouting match about it. Mr. Corrigan, who specializes in election law and is an expert in this, told his story and said how he told John Kerry that he had no choice. These are people who worked non-stop for over two years to get John Kerry elected President. They neglected family, work, money, etc in order to work for this man they believe in. It is an insult to all these good people to say that Kerry conceded because of some horseshit reason. He conceded because he had legally lost the race. End of story. If there had been just cause to contest, Kerry would have done so. There wasn't and still isn't.

People want John Kerry to go away. They use crappy and dumb excuses to justify this. They can all bite me, the friggin bastids. Someone like Kerry doesn't concede because he was in cahoots with the evil doers or other bs. He conceded, painfully, because he had to and he is an honorable man. And, in case the bastids haven't noticed yet, he is still fighting. Too friggin bad if they don't like it. Bite me!