Reply #258: I'll play

[Dr Ron]

Obviously you are entitled to your opinion and you are within your rights to oppose Kerry based upon this. However, I must point out that I consider this a very weak argument against Kerry.

Kerry took the unusual step of waiting until the next day to concede. He waited to see if mathematically he could win based upon the provisional ballots and the absentee ballots. He found that mathematically there were not enough such ballots present. Kerry was proven to be correct

If somehow Kerry was wrong and he did get enough votes to win, the concession would have had no legal meaning and he would have still gotten Ohio's electoral votes.

Next question is whether there was fraud. Suspicion of fraud is not a valid reason to fail to concede unless this could be proven. If he failed to concede without proof it would ultimately had made the entire party look like bad losers who were not willing to play by the rules. As one of our major complaints about the Bush administration is that he doesn't play by the rules (ie the Constitution) we don't want to give up the high ground on this.

In retrospect it is clear Kerry was right that fraud could not be proven in the narrow window between election day and when the electoral vote was counted. It's been well over a year later, and no proof has yet been found. Suspicions based upon exit polls and the numerous other irregularities are not suficient proof. Plus, if such proof had been found, Kerry's concession speech would not have meant anything and he could have stil contested the election once fraud was proven.

It is not true that Kerry simply gave up. Prior to election day, Kerry had contingency plans in case of a Gore/Florida type situation. For example, he had planned not to concede but to procede as if he had won and start putting together a cabinet, etc. However, the results placed him too far behind to justify this and he was right in not instituting this plan.

Concession did not mean Kerry gave up. Kerry was involved in investigating fraud after the election. His own brother was personally involved in leading this effort, showing how high a priority this was. Again, if they had come up with the proof of fraud, his concession would not have meant anything legally.