Why did Kerry Concede?

Here is the opinion of one political nobody on why Sen. John F Kerry conceded the election on Nov 2004. I have been told, "get over it" and get lost. The following is why Kerry has made me one pissed off Ohio voter and turned voting into a waste of time.

John Kerry on Nov 3 2004 made this concession statement.

"In America, it is vital that every vote counts, and that every vote be counted. But the outcome should be decided by voters, not a protracted legal process. ...I would not give up this fight if there was a chance that we would prevail. But it is now clear that even when all the provisional ballots are counted, which they will be, there won’t be enough outstanding votes for our campaign to be able to win Ohio. And therefore, we cannot win this election. ..........."

Time factor:

The decision to concede was made on Election Day, but delayed until the next day because it was viewed as an important event. Claimed all the evidence was in.

But, it was not in and those few extra hours were not a satisfactory time period to acquire election fraud evidence. The time needed was one to two weeks. 10 more days were needed to count the provisional ballots in the critical state of Ohio. But Kerry decided that counting every vote was no longer needed and accepted totals as is. Thus, the choice in time bases was 10 days of counting or 4 more years of Bush. Kerry chose neither, he went into hiding.

Campaign Promise Broken:

Kerry promised, every vote would count. During campaign, an estimated $ 10 million, 17,000 lawyers nation wide, and jets were said to be ready for election problems. But that promise was broken. There was massive fraud in Ohio and other critical states. But only a few issues were legally addressed during the election. In Ohio, The Secretary of State Blackwell while used that office for the BushCheney04 campaign and later arrogantly boasted he helped Bush win Ohio. However, national exit polls showed — Kerry won. Edwards did NOT want to concede. But Kerry and advisors stated they saw no evidence of fraud. After Kerry quit and went into hiding, non-political election groups were flooded with reports of vote fraud, voter suppression and irregularities at the polls. At legal hearings, no sign of direct support from the Kerry-Edward camp.

At a recount hearing in Columbus, I was shocked to hear the Ohio Kerry-Edwards lawyer say, Kerry and Edwards did not support the recount. He was there as an "Intervener-Defendant ". It was the Green and Libertarian Party that wanted every vote to be counted fairly. They should not have had to find additional funds for the recount fee and volunteers.

Kerry Campaign Strategy:

Now that the election is over, see Republican red flags in strategy.

Kerry had put Republicans in campaign positions.

For Ohio, Kerry hired lead lawyer, Dan Hoffheimer from the Ohio Republican, Governor’s Taft law firm. His legal background, politics and legal advice appeared to be a conflict of interest.

The chair of the Republican National Committee, Ed Gillespie, officially took "unpaid leave" from Bush’s 2004 campaign to work on the Kerry campaign. Gillespie is one of the most prominent strategists in the Republican Party.

Another was Bruce Andrews, as political director for the coordinating committee in Pennsylvania. Another was Manuel Ortiz, involved in the overall leadership structure of the Democratic Party, including both policy and fundraising, raising money for Kerry. Don’t know how many more Republicans were put in the Kerry-Edwards campaign.

On the Dem side, a popular pollster Mark Mellman was the lead pollster for John Kerry’s campaign. He stressed domestic policy and do not attack Bush. At that time, not attacking Bush sounded like positive campaigning. But on violation of election laws, slander, and intimidation, which sometimes hit people not in politics, Bush should have been held accountable.

I continue to get emails like this. Looks like a Dem cover-up. Many Dem leaders and those lawyers are making the same claims made by Republicans, "in almost the same language."

Election Laws Bad:

Assume Kerry was right and Bush got the most votes. Then a Karl Rove type campaign based on lies, slander and intimidation is best; it works. Ohio Secretary of State Blackwell used state office for the campaign as Co-Chair BushCheney04. He gained national attention for fighting election fraud in Ohio. Fraud later defined by him as preventing "liberals" (like Kerry supporters) from voting. With each election, 2000, 2002 and 2004, more fraud is being built in. In Ohio, the Bush politicians are pushing for silence on the 2004 problems to justify pushing for laws that would put less integrity in the system. At a legislative hearing, I heard, no problems, so no need to verify votes. Kerry and top Dem Party leaders have brushed off this trend with this. Forget this election; let’s have election reform in the next election. This tells me, those Dem leaders are soft on political crime.

Will top Dem leaders now draw the line and support the voter, a nobody like me ??? No!!! The Democratic National Committee report, "...The 2004 Election in Ohio" says no evidence of widespread switching votes from Kerry to Bush. To avoid attacking Bush, candidate in 2002 election, Tim Hagan for Ohio Governor was substituted for Bush in their analysis. That DNC report has given Republicans an endorsed reason to delay election reforms indefinitely

Kerry, " not a protracted legal process":

Kerry’s actions indicated he did not want to investigate and prosecute Bush for election fraud. Development of a case by the Kerry-Edwards camp was immediately stopped when Kerry conceded. A legal process could have exposed this in Ohio.

This fraud has a PROTRACTED link that goes from county BOEs, SOS Blackwell, Ohio Rep Ney, Karl Rove, to Bush. The election results were switched from Kerry to Bush on different systems and levels. Voting machines are rigged from within. A legal process could have resulted in, Kerry wins, Bush guilty. But, all this would have been a protracted, long case. So the guilty won.

Money:

The estimated $ 10 million intended for election problems was distributed to Kerry’s political friends, not to those investigating problems and those now working on election reforms. Kerry broke his campaign promise to supporters and now the non-political reformers feel cheated.

The money strategy for the past election and the future 2008 election appears to be this. Repubs milk the rich for money (percent of tax breaks returned as a contribution). Dems milk all others with the false hope of, make one more small contribution and you might win one. A Dem win would upset this profitable strategy for the consultants.

Future:

Kerry intends to run again. But suggestions for a Dem win with any candidate are being rejected/blocked. But that’s another story.

See another Dem lose in 2008. So why vote???

http://www.freepress.org/department...